HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
750605 ; VOL 1
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
DEPOSITION
1 TO 39
MARSHALL, DAVID M ; US DEPT OF JUSTICE
HELEN MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Case Nos: 772-71, 773-71, 774-71, 775-71
Taken at 3006 Colby Avenue, Everett, Washington
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
JERRY R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker
The Octagon Building
1735 New York Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
For the Defendant:
DAVID M. MARSHALL, ESQ.
Indian Claims Section
Land & Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Washington D.C. 20530
C. RICHARD NEELY
Assistant Regional Solicitor
Office of the Regional Solicitor
U.S. Department of the Interior
1002 N.E. Halladay Street
P.O. Box 3621
Portland, Oregon 97208
Also Present:
Peter Vaughn
N. Dee Terry
DATE: 750605
REPORTED BY: Linda J. Rough(())
PLEASE MAKE ALL CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS ON THIS SHEET, SHOWING PAGE,
LINE AND REASON, IF ANY, FOR NOTARY'S INSERTION INTO THE ORIGINAL
DEPOSITION. SIGN THIS SHEET; SIGN DEPOSITION BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC AT
END ON LINE PROVIDED; AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL DEPOSITION TO 1525
PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SEATTLE, 98171, FOR FILING WITH THE
CLERK OF THE COURT.
PAGE LINE CORRECTION AND REASON
25 25 Taholah
29 19 Raft River Nat Red Creek
44 19 Logged
51 3 HC Natl
89 2 Land
91 18 H
Lester C. McKeever
(Signature here and on
deposition)(())
Errors in deposition of Lester C. McKeever taken by defendant on
750605, in Everett, Washington. The purpose of this deposition is to
perpetuate the testimony of the 85-year old deponent for use in Helen
Mitchell, et al. v. United States, Docket Nos. 772-71 through 775-71,
before the Court of Claims.
Suggested Corrections
Page 6, line 23 - The word "early" is incorrect. I cannot recall
what word I used.
Page 10, lines 1 and 3 - The non-word "ollfall" should be replaced by
the correct word "off-fall".
Page 10, line 24 - The "Civilian Conservation Corp" is there referred
to as "CC". It should be "CCC".
Page 11, line 1 - The "Civilian Conservation Corp" is there referred
to as "CC". It should be "CCC".
Page 26, line 11 - The non-word "Polaskis" should be replaced by two
words "pole axes".
Page 29, line 16 - The abbreviation "CC" should be replaced by "CCC".
Page 32, line 2 - the reference to "Queets Unit" is incorrect. The
proper reference is "Crane Creek Unit".
Page 35, line 8 - The word "conceded" should be replaced by
"concerted".
Page 37, line 13 - I am not sure whether the word "hang" is properly
used.
Page 55, line 5 - The last word on this line is "saws" not "soils".
Page 63, lines 20, 22, and 23 - Each of these lines has the word
"inexcessible". The correct word is "inaccessible".
Page 64, line 20 - The word "crews" is twice used. The proper word
is "cruise".(())
MR. MARSHALL: This series of four discovery depositions which began
on Monday, 750602, and which were initiated at the request of
plaintiffs' counsel and worked out with the cooperation of defendant's
counsel, have been concluded.
This next deposition is of a witness called by the defendant in order
to preserve the testimony of that witness.
LESTER C. McKEEVER, witness herein, begin first duly sworn on oath,
was examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q Mr. McKeever, would you please state your name.
A Lester C. McKeever.
Q Does the "C" stand for Clyde?
A It does.
Q Some people know you as Clyde McKeever?
A Yes; or Mac.
Q Do you mind stating your age, please.(())
A 85.
Q And where do you live, Mr. McKeever?
A Hoquiam, Washington.
Q And what offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs are at Hoquiam?
A Well, the Forestry branch of the Indian Affairs office is in
Hoquiam.
Q Does that branch have supervision and management of the forest on
what is called the Quinault Reservation?
A That's right.
Q How far is the Quinault Reservation from Houqiam?
A Oh, approximately 30 miles up the coast and, if you go in by Lake
Quinault, it's about 40.
Q Is that accessible by good roads from your home?
A Yes.
Q Now, when did you begin work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mr.
McKeever?
A 1922.
Q Where did you begin work?
A On the Moclips scaling unit. I was stationed at Aloha and worked
on the Moclips unit.
Q Is the Moclips unit part of the Quinault Reservation?
A Yes, it is.
Q Did you tell us you lived at Aloha?
A Yes; for a short time.(())
Q Is Aloha on the Reservation?
A No.
Q How far is Aloha from the Quinault Reservation?
A About five miles.
Q Is it south of the Reservation?
A Yes.
Q What is your status now?
A Well, I'm retired at the present time.
Q You're retired from the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
A Yes.
Q When did you retire?
A 1957.
Q Now, what sort of work did you do when you first began as a Bureau
of Indian Affairs employee?
A I was a scaler.
Q And what type of scaler?
A What do you mean?
Q What was the nature of your work as a scaler?
A Determine the volume of merchantable timber of the logs.
Q Where was that?
A On the Moclips unit.
Q Was the Moclips unit under contract at that time?
A Yes, it was.
Q And in scaling the logs on the Moclips unit, for what(()) purpose
was that done?
A So that the Indians would be paid for their merchantable timber.
Q Was the Moclips unit allotted at that time?
A Most of it. There was one area of about 1,100 acres of tribal
land, and there was also a few fee patent allotments.
Q And the contract covered both the 1,100 acres of tribal land and
the fee patent allotments, or were they left out?
A The fee patent allotments weren't part of the contract, but the
tribal land was.
Q Was it virgin timber being logged?
A That's right.
Q What kind of timber was it?
A Principally cedar, some spruce and hemlock, but principally cedar.
Q As far as you know, were there any complaints by the allottees in
respect to logging practices under the Moclips contract?
A I never heard of one.
Q How long did you work on the Moclips unit?
A About six months.
Q And then where did you go?
A To the Point Grenville unit.(())
Q Was there a contract on the Point Grenville unit?
A Yes, there was.
Q And was that allotted?
A Yes; most of it.
Q Do you recall approximately how many acres the Point Grenville unit
was?
A No. I would just be hazarding a guess, but I would say there must
be around 30,000 or something like that.
Q It was appreciably bigger than the Moclips?
A Considerably.
Q Do you remember the kind of timber that was on it?
A It was principally cedar, some real good spruce, and I believe
there was one fir tree cut off of that unit and considerable hemlock.
The timber adjacent to the beach was very poor, but as you got back
across the rise from the beach, the timber was considerably better.
Q Why was the timber on the upper Grenville unit near the beach poor
and then got better as you went back?
A Primarily on account of the prevailing winds that stunted the
growth of the trees. There was very tough limbs and knots.
Q And the prevailing winds are early off the ocean; is that correct?
A Yes.(())
Q How long did you work on the Point Grenville?
A Until 260000.
Q Where did you live while you were working on the Point Grenville
unit?
A Moclips.
Q Was that on the Reservation?
A No; just off about a half a mile.
Q South of the Reservation?
A Yes.
Q Please tell us whether you heard any complaints in respect to the
logging operations and distribution of the proceeds among the allottees
in respect to the Point Grenville operation.
A No. I've never heard any complaints.
Q Now, where did you go from the Point Grenville operations in your
work for the Bureau on the Quinault Reservation?
A Hoquiam.
Q And what time was that?
A 260000.
Q What was the nature of your work at Hoquiam?
A Well, I was in charge of the various timber sales that were in
progress at that time.
Q That would include the Moclips unit, the Point Grenville unit?
A Cook Creek and Quinault Lake.(())
Q Lake Quinault unit?
A Yes.
Q What was the condition of the Quinault Reservation generally when
you first came to work on it?
A Approximately all virgin timber.
Q And, overall, what were the predominant species among the virgin
timber?
A Well, cedar would be the predominant species.
Q And from the standpoint of value, what was the species of value at
that time?
A Well, Douglas fir, although there wasn't much, actually had the
better value, but at that time cedar was about the best for the market
conditions.
Q What was the status of hemlock in respect to the market?
A It was considered a weed.
Q When did hemlock first begin to acquire value in the market?
A As I remember, the Point Grenville unit had a hemlock appraisal of
25 cents.
Q Now, 25 cents per thousand board feet?
A Yes. And the Quinault unit, when it was sold, was $3 per thousand
board feet. That was in a span of about, I believe, six years.
Q Had any of the Quinault Reservation been logged when you first came
to work there?(())
A Not to my knowledge.
Q What was the nature of the forest floor at that time on the
Quinault Reservation?
A Well, covered with dense brush, windfalls, debris from the trees.
Q There is another word for these windfalls and debris from the trees
and so on. Is another name "slash"?
A Some people call it duff.
Q Is that a natural accumulation through time?
A That's right.
Q Now, how thick can that sort of accumulation become?
A It could be terrific. There are some areas where there is nearly
as much timber on the ground and brush and duff as there was after it
was logged.
Q Now, is this accumulation through natural processes?
A That's right.
Q And is that worse as to some species as compared to others?
A Yes. It's worse in cedar because it doesn't deteriorate as quickly
as hemlock and spruce and fir.
Q Would another word for deterioration be that it doesn't decompose
as fast?
A That's right.
Q What was the nature of the streams on the Quinault Reservation in
those early years of your work there?(())
A Well, they were badly plugged up with off-fall from the green
timber.
Q What do you mean off-fall?
A An accumulation of limbs blown down, brush, things that had
accumulated over the years.
Q And had those created jams in the stream?
A Yes, they did.
Q Now, what was the color of the water in the streams?
A Black.
Q And what was the source of that color?
A So much decayed vegetation.
Q Did that color have any effect in any manner on the fish in the
streams that you could discern?
A No. The Moclips River was one of the worst ones from the
standpoint of the dark color.
Q Please tell us whether any of these streams needed opening up from
this natural debris that had accumulated over the years.
A Well, it would improve the stream flow and kept it from plugging in
spots. Yes, I would say it should have been opened.
Q Was anything done in that respect in regard to the Moclips River?
A Yes. During the CCC days, and even before that when we were
logging, we had them pull some of the old(()) rotten logs out of the
streams, and then after CCC, the Moclips, the Quinault, and the Raft
River were all opened up.
Q What was the primary reason for opening up these rivers?
A Well, I guess the main reason was to give work for the Indians and,
by that, also do some good to the streams.
Q Where was the biggest jam that you remember?
A On the Quinault River.
Q Were there any other jams on the Quinault River?
A There were two real quite big ones. They were the principal ones
blocking navigation and, on the Raft River near the mouth, there was one
real big jam there.
Q Now, when you first came to work on the Quinault Reservation, what
was the condition in respect to blow-downs?
A Well, there were several areas, small areas of blow-downs. The
year before I went to work there, there was a terrific blow-down all
over the Reservation and particularly in what's now the Raft River unit
-- or Crane Creek unit, I should say.
Q You have in front of you a map which is entitled "Allotment Map of
the Quinault Indian Reservation,"(()) which is more or less a
letter-sized sheet.
MR. MARSHALL: The defendant would like to have that marked for
identification as Exhibit A to Mr. McKeever's deposition.
(Exhibit A was marked for
identification.)
Q Would you please point out approximately the general location of
this 900 acre blow-down on the Crane Creek unit.
You circled the general location?
A Approximately. That might not be exactly pinpointed. Also, this
area here.
Q You are referring to the Milwaukie Trail Unit, the area that's in
and around the Milwaukie Trail Unit?
A Yes.
Q What was the Milwaukie Trail Unit?
A It was a salvage sale.
Q Was that or was it not an effort to salvage some value from the
210000 blow-down?
A That's right. It was a considerable area of Douglar fir in that
particular little island that had blown down and broken off, and we went
in to salvage it. We recovered what we could.
Q Was that land allotted at the time?
A Yes.(())
Q Did allottees receive the money from the salvage sale?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall whether there were any complaints about the
distribution of funds from that salvage, Mr. McKeever?
A I never heard of any.
Q There is another trail unit on that map. On the left side in the
margin is the reference to the N.P. Trail. What does the N.P. stand
for?
A Northern Pacific.
Q What was involved in that unit? What did that signify?
A They were planning on building a railroad north from Moclips, and
there is some traversed areas where the trail crosses the river where
it's surveyed. That's why it's called N.P. Trail.
Q What was done in respect to the timber, if anything?
A On the survey, we made a cruise of it. After they had completed
the survey and given us the plans, we cruised the timber on this survey
from the Moclips River north to determine what they would pay the
allottees if a road was ever built, which it never was.
Q In respect to railroads, were there any railroads of any kind in or
near the Reservation when you came to work there?(())
A Yes. The Northern Pacific had a terminal at Moclips.
Q That was just outside and south of the Reservation?
A About a half a mile from the Reservation boundary.
Q Now, please tell us whether there was any railroad logging on the
Quinault Reservation.
A Yes, there was. Well, all four of the first units were 100 percent
logged by railroads.
Q By the "first units," do you mean the Moclips unit?
A Moclips, Point Grenville, Cook Creek, and Quinault Lake.
Q Do you recall whether there were any other units logged by railroad
south of the Quinault River?
A Well, a portion of Hall Unit, as I remember, was logged by
railroads, not much of it, and this Upper Wreck Creek Unit was logged by
railroad.
Q Was any railroad logging north of the Quinault River?
A Yes, a little bit on the Quinault.
Q Lake Quinault?
A Yes.
Q What has happened in general to those old railroad rights of way?
A Many of their main lines have been converted to roads. Some of the
spurs -- many of the spurs -- that have been left to grow back have not
been kept open and are pretty well clogged with reproduction and so
forth.(())
Q Would it be fair to say in your opinion that natural regeneration
has pretty well reforested the abandoned railroads that weren't turned
into roads?
A Yes, except in the areas where they were badly burned over.
Q Do you recall what areas those would be?
A Well, principally the Cook Creek area.
Q Now, I believe you pointed out on the map, Exhibit A, that the 900
acre blow-down in 210000 was more or less in the southeast quadrant of
what is now known as the Crane Creek unit; is that correct?
A That's true.
Q What happened in respect to that 900 acres in respect to
reforestation?
A Well, I believe it was 300000 or 310000 that we cruised the area,
and it was 100 percent reforested with practically all hemlock.
Q Do you recall what size the trees were at that time, the growths
that came in after the blow-down?
A I would say the average was around 16 to 20 feet in height.
Q Was that by a process of natural regeneration, or had it been
planted?
A No, no; natural reproduction.
Q In your earlier years on the Quinault Reservation, what(()) type of
logging was considered to be selective logging?
A Well, tree selection and area selection.
Q What do you mean by "tree selection," Mr. McKeever?
A Where the trees were marked prior to logging and the area selection
was where a given block or a given plot of ground was marked for
logging.
Q Do you recall any instances of tree selection?
A Yes; two. There was one up near the north boundary in the
northwest corner of Queets -- there was two allotments in that -- and we
selected two allotments on the Quinault Lake unit.
Q What type of timber was on the two allotments on the one you just
last mentioned, Lake Quinault?
A There was a mixed stand of fir and hemlock, mostly, and a small
amount of cedar.
Q Do you recall what species were on the Queets unit, the two
allotments there?
A That was about 100 percent spruce.
Q What happened to those four allotments on the Lake Quinault unit
and the Queets unit?
A They were badly blown down after logging. I thought we did a
pretty good job of marking, and I believe Mr. Kinney inspected the area.
Q Is that J.P. Kinney?
A Yes; and Lee Muck, and they thought we did a good(()) job marking,
but it blew down and the Indians suffered a considerable loss from
breakage. We salvaged the timber, what was salvageable.
Q What was the condition of selective logging or tree selection
system of logging insofar as blow-downs are concerned?
A Well, I think it's a mistake.
Q Why is it a mistake?
A Because you're going to lose your stands that are left after
logging. It's going to blow down, and the allottee will suffer
considerable damage from breakage. Even if the other timber is
salvaged, the breakage is going to mean quite a little loss of revenue
to the allottee.
Q In your first year at work on the Quinault Reservation, do you
remember whether any logging units were sold for timber?
A No, I don't think so. The two Moclips and Point Grenville were
sold previous to my job.
Q After you came there, what sales were there that you recall?
A Well, I'll have to look at the map to refresh my memory.
The Upper Wreck Creek and the N.P. Trail and the Hall, Hatch, River
Bend, Cook Creek, Boulder Creek,(()) and Lake Quinault.
Q Were any of these sold above the advertised price, do you recall?
A Yes; both the Cook Creek and Lake Quinault units brought above the
advertised price.
Q And what type of timber? You may have said that already, but what
type of timber was on the Cook Creek unit?
A Well, it was a mixed stand, principally, hemlock, some spruce,
cedar in different areas, and fir. There was some real fine fir on that
unit.
Q What was the status as to the hemlock price in respect to exceeding
the advertised price on the Cook Creek unit?
A On the Cook Creek unit?
Q Yes, sir.
A I believe we got 50 cents above the advertised price.
Q Now, what was the nature of the timber on the Quinault Lake unit?
A It was a mixed stand of practically all species.
Q Have you ever heard of the Baker Prairie Unit?
A Yes; it's what we now consider the Upper Wreck Creek.
Q Now, what was your contact in respect to the Hatch logging unit?
A Well, I was Forest Ranger at the agency at the time that was
sold.(())
Q Were you in charge of logging operations?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall whether there were any complaints?
A I've never heard of any.
Q How about the Hall Unit? That was after you were in Hoquiam in the
office there, was it not?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember any complaints by allottees in respect to the
logging operations on the Hall Unit and the distribution of the
proceeds?
A None except -- let me clarify this whole thing.
In practically all the units, the allottees wanted their allotment
logged as soon as possible. That was the only complaint, slowness of
logging.
Q Were any of those so-called hardship cases where they said they
needed the money for some urgent necessity?
A Most of them were.
Q What was the attitude of the Bureau in respect to these requests by
allottees wanting money as soon as possible?
A Well, that was one of the reasons for the sales north of the river,
was to get as much money and as soon as possible to the allottees.
Q How about on the sales north of the river? What units(()) do you
refer to there?
A Crane Creek and the Taholah units; also, the Queets unit.
Q Do you recall anything in respect to the River Bend unit?
A That was a salvaged sale, mostly. I believe it was in '38, a fire
jumped the river there and burned out this small area. That's actually
a salvaged sale.
Q Is that the Quinault River?
A Yes.
Q Did the allottees benefit from that salvage operation?
A They certainly did.
Q Do you recall whether there were any complaints about that salvage
operation?
A None whatever.
Q I notice from Exhibit A that apparently the Mounts Unit came under
contract while you were in the Hoquiam office; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What do you remember in respect to that logging operation?
A Well, that was mostly railroad logging. There was some tractor
logging, however.
Q What was the condition of it in respect to allotments?
A I didn't hear you.
Q What was the status of that tract insofar as whether it was
allotted or not?(())
A It was practically all allotted.
Q Do you remember whether the allottees appeared to be satisfied with
that logging operation?
A They appeared to be.
Q Now, under these contracts that we have discussed so far, Mr.
McKeever, these timber sales, these various logging units, what was the
situation as to slash disposal?
A Well, it's always been considered, but the problem has never been
solved, as far as I know.
Q What consideration was given to it, particularly, if you remember?
A Well, trying to get rid of the worst areas by burning, but it
didn't prove too successful.
When you first burn, you don't clear the ground; you just make it
more susceptible to another burn.
Q What is the condition generally from a first burn?
A Well, it retards your reforestation a year or two, but you will get
a good stand of reproduction after it's been burned over once.
Q What was your first experience in burning slash on the Quinault
Reservation?
A Well, it was tried on the Point Grenville unit in an area of pretty
heavy slash.(())
Q Was that when you were working on the ground there before you went
into the Hoquiam office?
A Yes.
Q And what happened there?
A Well, that's the one I mentioned before when the Aloha camp was
burned up. I set the fire and it burned up.
Q Was the Aloha camp in the Grenville unit?
A No; it was in the Moclips unit.
Q So, it spread from the Point Grenville unit down to the southern
part of the Reservation?
A That's right. It jumped about a mile and a half of green timber.
Q Does a fire die right out and disappear? What's its condition in
respect to that?
A Well, if you can head it into green timber, it dies out pretty
readily, but if you have a big area of cut over slash, it's awfully hard
to control it; in fact, about impossible.
Q Will it ever smolder for any period of time?
A I beg your pardon?
Q Will it ever smolder for any period of time?
A Yes. That would depend on conditions of the site you were in. If
you were in cedar, you would have a heavier accumulation of slash, and
it would smolder for quite(()) some time, and hemlock would go out
pretty readily.
Q Do you have any recollection of that happening in respect to
burning slash?
A No. It was in reverse. It smoldered for a long time before;
actually, about five months.
Q Where and when was that?
A The fire originated on the Point Grenville unit and jumped on to
the Moclips unit.
Q Do you recall approximately when it originated?
A In February.
Q And when did it do the jumping?
A In June.
Q And what did that experience produce in result to policy in respect
to burning slash?
A Well, it made us take a second look at it; that that wasn't the
answer.
Q And what has been the Bureau policy since then insofar as the
Quinault Reservation is concerned?
A Leave the slash as it was after logging.
Q Now, what was the attitude of the forest industry, say, in the
1920's, '30's, '40's, generally, in Western Washington as to slash
disposal as compared to the Bureau policy in the Quinault Reservation?
A No slash was ever disposed of unless it was caught fire, and if it
did, why, no effort was made to put(()) the fires out.
Q Before you retired in 570000, please tell us whether slash had
begun to acquire an economic value.
A Yes. Before, the first slash or utilization of slash was in cedar,
and they called it flitch. That was mostly from windfall. You could
get a length of four feet and then whatever you could split out was sold
in Japan.
Q Now, if you know, when did conditions develop so that the value of
slash would exceed the cost of disposing that slash so that it would be
economic to remove it?
A I don't think that's happened yet, as far as I know.
Q How did the Bureau forest management and logging practices on the
Quinault Reservation in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's and 1950's
compare with that of the forest industry generally in Western
Washington?
A I would say they compared very favorably.
Q Have you had experience with planting as a type of reforestation on
the Quinault Reservation?
A Yes, I have.
Q When was your first experience?
A 290000.
Q What part of the Reservation was involved in that?
A Well, right down in the southeast corner -- it shows on the map
here -- just south of what's termed the Hatch(()) Unit, that white area.
Q What kind of land was replanted there?
A It was tribal land.
Q Do you remember what type of species was planted?
A Yes. We tried spruce, fir, cedar, hemlock, white pine, and
redwood, both species of redwood.
Q What's happened in respect to that reforestation project?
A About a hundred percent survival in all species except hemlock.
Q Has it been logged since it was planted?
A No; that is, I don't know that it has.
Q When did you last see the timber that was growing, this new growth
that you planted?
A Well, I think the last time I was through that area was about maybe
690000.
Q What was the condition of it then, Mr. McKeever?
A Doing fine.
Q What efforts, if any, did the Bureau of Indian Affairs make while
you were an employee at Hoquiam in respect to establishing a saw mill
for the Quinault Reservation for the benefit of the Indians?
A Well, when Mr. Ickes was Secretary of Interior and John Collier,
the head of the Bureau -- he was in the area and had meetings at -- (())
Q Mr. Ickes or Mr. Collier or both of them?
A Just Mr. Collier.
-- Taholah with the Quinault Indians regarding industries that they
may be interested in for the year.
Q Is Taholah on the Quinault Reservation?
A Yes.
Q Is that where the headquarters for the Quinault Tribe are?
A Taholah, yes.
Q And what resulted from that meeting, Mr. McKeever?
A Well, many of the allottees attended -- not all of them would have
been affected -- but they wondered who was going to pay for this timber
as it came off, and I don't think Mr. Collier was able to state
definitely that the Bureau would pay for the timber, but they would have
to derive the payment from any profits that were made from the saw mill.
Q Did anything come of the meeting in a substantial way?
A No. I think, as a whole, the allottees were very well pleased if
there were some definite plans whereby they would start reaping benefits
immediately from anything.
Q Would it be fair to say that the allottees only wanted a saw mill;
it would mean that this timber would produce the same revenue as it
would from a logging contract?(())
A Yes, or even less. They had no assurance from the department
anyhow that they would -- They would have to look to the saw mill
operations for payment for their timber.
Q What was the condition of the Quinault Reservation as to fire
protection when you were on the Reservation and when you were working
later in Hoquiam?
A Well, at first we had very little fire protection.
Q When they were logging railroads, that was the only means to the
area, and we had very little equipment outside of mattocks and pole axes
to shovel. We did have two Ross pumpers and, I believe, 1500 feet of
hose. That was all manned by the Forestry employees, and, of course,
you always had help from the logging companies, but their equipment was
pretty sparse, too; usually a tank car and pump.
Q What caused fires?
A Well, the logging industry caused most of them in the '30's, not
only on the Reservation, but off, and there was quite a few fires that
were set.
In 410000, there was a lot of fires set by lightning all through the
Olympic Peninsula; I believe 230-some fires in one night.
Q Was it before you retired when someone else took over the fire
protection?(())
A Yes; the State.
Q When did that occur?
A Well, I'm not sure. I would say in around 550000 or 560000 or
somewhere thereabouts.
Q What prompted that?
A Well, they had the equipment and the crews, which the Indian
service didn't have. We had equipment, but you had to depend on the
loggers for your crew. Outside of a skeleton crew, we just didn't have
them. We didn't have the funds to pay them.
Q How did the fire protection on the Quinault Reservation, in those
years before the contract was entered into with the State to provide
fire protection, compare with that on other forest lands on Western
Washington?
A I think probably it was comparable.
Q What type of growth generally was on the Quinault Reservation? I'm
not referring to timber species which you went into earlier, but could
you describe generally the condition of the growths, vegetation on the
Quinault Reservation in those early years when you first came there?
A Well, it was all virgin.
Q Aside from the timber, though, was there dense, light, much
underbrush, that sort of thing?
A Well, there was areas in these prairies that practically(()) no
merchantable timber grew on, swampy area, and with a little rattail
cedar growing of no value whatsoever.
There was some areas of excellent timber, and there were some areas
even outside of the prairies that were small and poor, but a good stand.
On the Hall Unit in particular, the timber was small, but it was of
good quality.
Q What was the nature of the road system in those early years that
you worked on the Reservation?
A Well, when they were logging by railroads, that was the only road
system. After the railroad logging, they were converted into what we
called truck trails in those days.
Q Was there any development of roads on the Queets unit before you
retired in 570000?
A Yes. A road was built with the CCC and WPA right along the coast
from about a mile south of Queets, left the Olympic Highway, went into
the ocean, and ran south from there to the mouth of Red Creek.
Q Now, is Queets a village on the Queets unit?
A Yes.
Q What is the approximate location of that village on the map in
Exhibit A?
A Right at the mouth of the Queets River in the northwest corner.
(())
Q So, would it be fair to say, then, that that road pretty well
traversed the coastal part of the Queets unit?
A That's right.
Q From south to north?
A No; from north to south down to the mouth of the Raft River.
(Brief recess.)
Q You say when you retired in 570000, Mr. McKeever, there was the
coastal road in the Queets unit.
A Yes.
Q Were there any other road developments in 570000 in that unit?
A None that I know of.
Q Why was that?
A Well, the big expense of building roads was scarcity of material to
build it out of. We hauled the gravel along the road down the coast
from the mouth of the Queets River.
Q What was the situation as to gravel generally in the Queets unit?
A There would be spots where it would be practically impossible to
find it. Usually, in the hemlock areas, gravel was usually readily
accessible. It might be a few feet under the ground, but there is
pretty much(()) all good gravel. There were poor gravel conditions in
the cedar areas.
Q How did the gravel situation in the Queets unit compare to other
parts of the Quinault Reservation?
A It would be, to my judgment, better than most of the other parts of
the Reservation.
Q What was the situation as to the Queets unit when you retired in
regard to allotments?
A Well, the whole thing had been allotted, but there had been some
fee patents issued and some supervised sales issued.
Q Was any progress made while you were in charge of logging opertions
in respect to providing jobs for the Quinault engineers and allottees in
the logging industry?
A Yes. I personally got jobs for quite a number of Indians. There
was a few in the Indian service, forestry work, oh, maybe five or six.
One of them quit a short time afterwards and we know was a mechanic for
the City of Hoquiam.
Some of them that were working got jobs with the logging companies
and would fish when the fish started to run, particularly, the Quinault
salmon, and go back to fishing.
Q Did any of them get jobs with Aloha on the Taholah unit?(())
A Yes.
Q Did any of them get jobs with Rayonier on the Queets unit?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall anything about the publicity, if any, that preceded
the letting of the Queets contract of 500000?
A Well, they were advertised by letter and in papers.
Q By "papers," do you mean newspagers?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what newspapers?
A The Aberdeen Daily Word would have been the principal one, but
there were also ads in the Seattle PI and the Seattle TIMES, as I
recall, and I believe the Montesano Gazette carried the advertising
about twice, I think.
Q Were there any news articles discussing it as a news item?
A I believe there was one radio advertisement of it that was
announced at that time on the radio. I think probably outside of
letters to prospective buyers, that would constitute all of it.
Q Do you have any recollection as to the approximate number of
outside buyers that were contacted by letter?
A No, I wouldn't say how many. I know there were several.(())
Q Now, the same type of question, Mr. McKeever, in respect to the
Crane Creek contract of 520000 in respect to the publicity that preceded
the letting of the contract.
A Similar to the others.
Q We have here a report that is entitled, "Forest Officer's Report
Covering The Proposed Sale Of Timber On The Taholah Logging Unit,
Quinault Indian Reservation, Washington, 460831," and it has your name
on the title page.
A Yes.
Q Are you familiar with that report, Mr. McKeever?
A Yes, I am.
Q Have you read that report?
A I have.
Q Do you agree in generally with the comments and the conclusions
that are presented in that report?
A Yes, I do.
MR. MARSHALL: Defendant enters that as Exhibit B to Mr. McKeever's
deposition.
(Exhibit B was marked for
identification.)
Q Mr. McKeever, have you ever heard of the 160000 cruise on the
Quinault Reservation?
A Yes, I have.
Q What relationship did that have to the Taholah and(()) Crane Creek
contracts?
A The sales were based on the 160000 cruise.
Q Now, did that use of the 160000 cruise for that purpose have any
effect on the amount of money actually received by the allottees under
those two contracts?
A None whatsoever in the long run.
Q Do you recall the general timber sales regulations of 200000?
A Yes. I know they were in effect, but what was in them would be
hard to remember now.
Q Yes, sir. Do you know whether or not those were designed
specifically for the Quinault Reservation, or were they designed for BIA
forests generally all over the country?
A I would say they were designed generally for the Klamath
Reservation.
Q And what was the nature of the timber on the Klamath Reservation?
A Mostly pine.
Q Where is that reservation?
A In Oregon, southern Oregon.
Q Is the nature of the forest generally comparable or different than
the nature of the forest on the Quinault Reservation?
A Just as different as day from night.(())
Q Mr. McKeever, did you have anything to do with attaining powers of
attorney for logging contracts while you were in the Indian service?
A Yes; some slight contacts. If an Indian came into the office at
the time I was there and asked for power of attorney, I would witness it
and watch him sign it, but I never would read it and make the conceded
effort to attain it.
Q Who did that work?
A Well, first, on the sales, Henry B. Steer did most of it.
Q S-t-e-e-r?
A Yes; but I would say most of it was done from Indians coming into
the office in Hoquiam.
Q Do you have any idea generally and roughly what percentage of
Indians, allottees, would sign up these powers of attorneys for these
contracts?
A Well, this would be a guess on my part, but I would say 80 percent
came into the office and probably 20 percent were contacted at their
homes.
Q Now, 80 percent of those who signed would come to the office?
A Yes.
Q How about the powers of attorney, Mr. McKeever, in respect to the
Taholah and Crane Creek contracts? Do(()) you recall anything about
those?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Which ones was he speaking of before that? I thought
you were talking about Taholah and Crane Creek.
THE WITNESS: Well, I could have been talking about any.
Q Addressing yourself specifically, Mr. McKeever, to the Taholah and
Crane Creek contracts, what do you recall in respect to the powers of
attorney for those two?
A At that time, we had a land division that Mr. Frank Beaulieu was
the head of, and I would say he got most of the names for the powers of
attorney.
Q Do you recall whether many of those came into the office in
Hoquiam?
A Yes; a large percentage of them.
Q Then, they would sign them there?
A Yes; Mr. Beaulieu would.
Q Is that where Mr. Beaulieu was stationed?
A Yes; in Hoquiam.
Q I thought we covered slash burning as to the industry generally,
but if we didn't, I want to ask you again: How did slash burning in the
1920's, 1920's, 1930's, and the 1940's, in the forest industry in
Western Washington compare as to slash(()) burning in the Quinault
Reservation with respect to policy and practice?
A They were very similar. Nobody burned slash.
Q What was the technique for logging? You might give us some general
description of the development of logging techniques in respect to
timber cutting and removal during the time you were on the Reservation
and in Hoquiam.
A Well, when they were logging by railroad, the idea was to build
your main lines through the best stand of timber and use spurs away from
that. That's more or less true with tractor logging; you would hang
your main road and your spurs out from it, but your main road usually
would go in or near your best stands of timber, so you would get more
feet per thousand off of the road than you would off of the spurs.
Q When did tractor logging come in general use on the Quinault
Reservation?
A In the late '30's, middle '30's.
Q Are you familiar with the term "high lead"?
A Yes, I am.
Q What does that mean?
A That's where you use a spar tree for their landing and yarded a
circle around a particular area, usually(()) about 1,100 or 1,200 feet.
Q Was that used with railroad logging?
A Yes.
Q Was it continued to be used with tractor logging?
A Yes, in some cases.
Q When did they shift from using a spar tree as a high lead to the
equipment which is used today, which is motorized and moveable? Were
they still using the high lead when you retired in 570000?
A Yes. In fact, I think some places still do.
Q The development of the moveable equipment, the motorized equipment
in place of a high lead came after you retired; is that correct?
A The better equipment that's now being used. The first that I
remember were small low horsepower, according to the strength of a
donkey engine or a steam engine. They didn't have the capacity to move
timber as well as the high lead system or skyline, either one.
Q Now, what do you mean by the skyline?
A That's where you had a spar tree at your landing and spar trees
around from 800 to 1,200 feet away from the landing. Line was run from
the top of the spar tree to your tail spars, and the logs were lifted
off the ground and carried on this cable from the tail(()) spars to the
landings.
Q When did they begin using the skyline technique on the Quinault
Reservation?
A I would say in the late '20's.
Q So, that could have been used in conjunction with railroad logging
as well as tractor logging; is that correct?
A Yes.
MR. MARSHALL: That concludes defendant's questions at this time.
(Brief recess.)
HEL-007-0164-0323
HEL-007-0164-0323(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
770605 ; VOL 1
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
DEPOSITION
39 TO 88
GOLDSTEIN, JERRY R ; WILKINSON CRAGUN
BY MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Q First of all, on behalf of the plaintiffs, we are glad to have the
opportunity to talk to someone with as much knowledge of the old days as
you have. Even though the government has called you as a witness to
perpetuate testimony, we view this partially, at least, as a discovery
deposition, and we hope you will be alive and healthy to testify at the
trial and that there is no need for the perpetuation of the testimony.
I want to go back and fill in on a couple of things about your own
background. First of all, where did you get your education?(())
A I never attended college. I graduated from Medford High School in
about 070000.
Q What did you do between that time and the time you went to work for
the BIA?
A Oh, many things. I played ball in the Northern California league
and worked for Marshall Wells Hardware in Portland, and I worked in a
box factory; many things.
Q You said you started with the BIA in 220000.
A Here, yes, but I worked about two years in Klamath with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. That was my first work with them.
Q Once you started working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was all
your work connected with the Quinault Reservation or Taholah Reservation
or Hoquiam?
A After I left Klamath, I was induced to go to Yakima and work in
their reclamation job, and I put in nearly a year at Yakima with the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Q This was before 220000?
A Yes. And I came to Hoquiam on a visit Christmas of 190000, and I
was induced to take a scaling job with the Blagen Mill. So, I worked
for them scaling from 190000 to the latter part of 220000.
Q And then you came and scaled on the Quinault units?
A Yes. I knew Henry Steer, who came up here to administer sales, and
between he and my wife, they(()) talked me into quitting Blagen and
going into the Indian service.
Q You sound like you regret that decision.
A No. As it turned out, it was pretty good, but at the time, I
wasn't too pleased about it.
Q What year did you go from the field to the Hoquiam office?
A 260000.
Q After 260000 and until 570000, were you solely connected --
A Mostly field work.
Q But always at the Hoquiam agency? Did you ever leave that?
A No.
Q Your title at Hoquiam was Forest Ranger?
A Yes.
Q Is that comparable to Forest Manager today?
A No.
Q It wasn't what Joe Jackson does?
A No. That's about as good as you can get without a technical
education, which I didn't have.
Q You started on the Moclips unit scaling?
A That's right.
Q Are you aware of any sales on the Reservation before that?
A No. I think that was the first.(())
Q Do you recall anything about the airplane spruce sale?
A Yes. I don't know just how those sales were handled, but I know
there was airplane spruce cut on the northeast corner and a little bit
on the southwest corner, but I don't know whether it was just tree
selection or what kind of sales they were.
Q Do you know what dates it was when the airplane spruce sales were
cut?
A Yes. I think the highest was about 190000, but after the war it
began to taper off, and there was some airplane spruce as such taken off
the Point Grenville unit, but I don't know of any airplane spruce taken
off of any of the other units.
Up in one edge of the old Cook Creek unit, there was some spruce cut
in there during the war. I think probably about 20 trees, something
like that.
Q Were those sales railroad logged or water logged, or do you recall?
A No; they were taken out by railroads. The stuff on the east part
of the Reservation, Polson's Railroad hauled them out, and on the west
side they were taken into Moclips and, of course, Smith had his own
railroad shipped out of Moclips, but I can't tell you anything about the
sales. That(()) happened long before I was in the country.
Q Did you have anything to do with the so-called 210000 blow down
cruise?
A Yes.
Q When was that cruise made?
A 310000.
Q 310000
A Yes.
Q What was the condition of the blow down timber, as you recall?
A Well, I would say it was about half decayed. It was practically
all hemlock, and some of the logs that we were walking on going through
this area were 14, 15, 16 inches diameter and would break under our
weight. It was pretty badly decomposed at that time.
Q Do you remember whether the Bureau in about 290000 put up for sale
the so-called North Quinault unit?
A Yes.
Q What happened at that?
A They didn't get any bidders.
Q So, the sale was withdrawn?
A That's right.
Q How about the Joe Creek and Lunch Creek and Raft River proposed
sales around that period? Same thing, or do(()) you recall those
attempts?
A I don't recall ever receiving any bids on the Raft River unit. Oh
-- do you mean Boulder Creek instead of Joe Creek?
Q Well, Boulder Creek is what it was sold under eventually, I think,
but I thought it was proposed way back prior to that.
A No. I think that was the original name for it, Boulder Creek.
Q Do you remember any proposed sale named Joe Creek?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you remember any Indian opposition to any of those sales?
A Not that I recall.
Q You don't recall any complaints about the logging back in those
days by the allottees?
A No; never about logging or how it was handled or anything. The
only complaint I ever had was that it was slow getting their allotments.
Q Does the name Sally Williams allotment ring a bell as to any
problems the Bureau had?
A Yes. That was the first allotment on the Reservation that Aloha
wanted to build a road through, and as I remember -- it was a little bit
before my time -- but she wasn't too eager to give right-of-way
through(()) it without -- I think she wanted 50 percent of the timber
right there.
Q Did the Bureau eventually get a right-of-way?
A Yes.
Q She agreed?
A She agreed to it. That was before I had gone to work; however, I
knew the mechanics of it.
Q Did the Bureau agree to meet her price, or did the logger agree to
meet her price?
A I believe we all met her price.
Q Mr. Marshall spoke to you about the experimental forest.
A Yes.
Q You said the hemlock didn't do too well. It died?
A That's right.
Q Do you know why?
A I haven't the slightest idea. We got 90 percent survival on the
other stock, but very poor survival on the hemlock.
Q Did they use steam skidders?
A I beg your pardon?
Q Did they use steam skidders to log any of those old units?
A Smith owned a Point Grenville skidder.
Q Is he the only one you know.(())
A Yes.
Q Were those high horse power machines?
A Yes, they were; really big machines.
Q You said the 200000 general timber sale regulations, which were
attached to the Taholah and Crane Creek contracts and made a part of
them, were designed primarily for the Klamath Reservation.
A That's my opinion, yes.
Q Do you know why they weren't adjusted for Quinault?
A No, I don't, unless it was that they didn't have enough information
on the area at the time the sales were made, and the Klamath sales were
old, established regulations, and I suppose that's why they used them.
Q When did they start logging on the Klamath Reservation, making
large timber sales?
A I don't know when they started making large ones.
Q Did they start selling timber before Quinault?
A Yes. I did a little scaling on them, I would say offhand around
140000, but a lot of that area that they logged in those days was
infested with this pine beetle, and they took out what they could and
salvaged the timber, and in the wintertime, they had quite a program of
beetle control. They would fall these beetle infested trees and take
the bark(()) off and pile it and burn it.
Q That was before 200000 on the Klamath?
A Yes; that was around from 120000 to 140000.
Q On the Klamath Reservation?
A Yes.
Q Do you know why later published regulations, such as 360000 or
490000, were not used or attached to the Taholah and Crane Creek
contracts?
A No, I don't.
MR. NEELY: Off the record.
(Discussion had off the record.)
Q Mr. Marshall asked you about the condition of the Moclips River;
do you recall?
A Yes.
Q And he asked you if you felt that there had been a discernible
effect on the fish from the logs having fallen into streams. Did you
ever make any studies?
A Just observation from time to time during the run of the fish.
Q Did any fish biologist or person who had any expertise measure?
A No.
Q You said under the old contracts that slash was not burned -- you
found it hadn't worked -- and that the(()) rest of the industry at that
time didn't burn, either.
A That's true.
Q Do you know when the State of Washington and the Forest Service
began burning slash?
A Well, the Forest Service burned a little spot on what they called
Quinault Ridge I think around 450000, but whether the State ever
required it, I don't know.
Q Has the Forest Service required burning since 450000 of their
operators?
A Well, I wouldn't be sure about that, but I suppose they have.
Q You spoke also about the powers of attorney and getting the
allottees to sign powers to attorney. How did the Bureau make the
allottees aware of the sales and of the need for the powers of attorney?
A By letter, usually. Of course, there was advertising in the
papers, by contacts verbally, but, I believe all allottees were given
written notice of the sales.
Q What kind of information were they given in letters or orally about
the sales?
A Well, specifically, I think about the sales would cover the
majority of the information, when they planned to advertise it and so
on.
Q Did they tell the allottees about how the pricing system(()) was
going to work on the contracts?
A Yes; they would explain thoroughly.
Q In the letters?
A Yeah.
Q And the allottees were invited to come to the Hoquiam office?
A They were invited to, or, if they couldn't make it, someone would
contact them.
Q Did the Bureau encounter any trouble?
A None that I ever knew of.
Q You knew about the 160000 cruise, did you not?
A Yes.
Q I assume that was used as a basis for all those old contracts when
they were entered into?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know how the actual cut volume on those contracts at the end
of the contracts compared with the estimated contract value based on the
160000 cruise?
A Usually an overrun.
Q Do you have any feel for how much of an average overrun?
A No. I would be hesitant to guess. In different areas, it was
different overrun.
Q Did the Bureau ever consider making another cruise during(()) the
years that you were there?
A Not that I ever knew of.
Q Was any consideration given to increasing the estimated volume of
the Taholah and Crane Creek contracts based on the over cut volume on
the old contracts?
A Not that I know of.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Off the record.
(Whereupon lunch recess was taken
and reconvened at 1:25 p.m.)
Q Could you provide us with a brief description of your duties as
Forest Ranger working at the Hoquiam office?
A Yes. I did scaling when it was necessary to relieve somebody that
got sick or hurt or something, check scaling, pick-up, ran out log man
lines, just about everything connected with the logging end of it.
Q General contract administration, timber sale administration?
A Yes.
Q Did you do work on the Crane Creek and Taholah units, too?
A A little bit; not much.
Q In this report that you did in 460000, you did it with Carthon
Patrie. There is an appraisal in here for purposes of the Taholah
contract; is that correct?
A That's right.(())
Q Did you do that alone or with him?
A No. Actually, Mr. Patrie did I would say 95 percent of the work on
it. I was sent in here from the area office and I worked with him on
it.
They didn't have a supervisor at the agency at that time, and I was
filling that position for about a year and a half, something like that.
Q Supervisor of the Hoquiam -- Was that a subagency at that time?
A Yes.
Q I have not had a chance to study this appraisal procedure in
detail. Can you briefly describe where the cost figures came from that
you used in here?
A Well, from the industry and, well, different logging outfits. We
got their costs with the Forest Service and, I believe, we did some work
with the State on their costs and rates.
Q Were any costs taken from previous loggers on the Reservation?
A Yes.
Q How about the prices, the log prices in here? Same answer?
A Yes.
Q Do you know where the State or Forest Service sales(()) were that
you used?
A Well, most of them -- not State, but Forest Service sales -- were
east of Quinault, in that area.
Q In the Olympic National Forest?
A Yes. State sales, they had small sales over there, but I don't
suppose we had all of the data on the State sales. We did have from
Forks south and north and east to Olympia.
Q Any private sales used?
A Yes.
Q Where were they located generally?
A Mostly in the Grays Harbor area.
Q Did you look for any particular sales? Did you look for particular
species' composition?
A How do you mean?
Q Or volumes when you compared these other sales for the appraisal?
A No; generally, by species, but not one particular species.
Q General species comparability?
A Yes.
Q And then you adjusted these State or Federal or private sales to
apply to the Reservation?
A That's right.
Q When you were working on the Quinault Reservation, at(()) any time
was there a general management plan drawn up to guide you?
A Not that I recall. A plan for the whole Reservation, do you mean?
Q Overall management plan, yes.
A Not that I recall. I believe they got into that in the '60's.
Q Logging on units, most of the units, both south and north of the
river that you are familiar with, was clear cutting in blocks? Is that
the way you would describe it?
A Not always. Of course, there was clear cutting, period.
When they built railroads, they would cut the areas, but after they
went with truck logging, it was practically all clear cutting except the
areas that I mentioned before where it was selective.
Q When did you switch on the Reservation to clear cutting in blocks
as opposed to the general clear cutting?
A In the early '50's.
Q When you had this clear cutting generally prior to the '50's, where
was the seed source for the regeneration to come from?
A Well, it was in the ground, an awful lot of it, and then there was
always an area adjoining these areas where seed could blow into and
reforest.(())
Q How wide was the area generally that you would clear cut into?
A Well, it would vary. Maybe the widest of them would be, on, 2,500
feet, something like that.
Q 20 feet by 100 feet?
A 2,500 feet wide.
Q I'm sorry.
A That was just about the limit of the reach for the spar trees.
Q And when did the Bureau switch to clear cutting in blocks?
A Well, one thing was to get reproduction quicker and also for fire
protection. These blocks, there was always green timber around them,
which would help retard a fire if it started.
Q Now, you spoke of fires on the Reservation while you were there.
A Yes.
Q You said some were caused by lightning?
A That's right.
Q And some were caused by logger operations?
A That's right.
Q How did the ones start that were caused by logger operations?
A What do you mean?(())
Q Was it the railroad engines themselves or what?
A Well, railroads and donkey engines were the main cause. Often,
friction from the blocks would start a fire, or broken bottles that a
cutting crew had broken that they carried their oil in for the soils.
As the sun got just right on them, they would start a fire. That was
not very often, but it has happened.
Q After there was a fire, would the Bureau go in and attempt to
measure the amount of the timber that had been lost to the fire?
A Oh, yes.
Q Did they make payment to the allottees for the loss of timber, if
it was due to operator negligence?
A That's right.
Q So, the Bureau had to make a determination as to whether it was
operator negligence versus act of God?
A Yes. That wasn't too hard to determine.
Q If it was an act of God, then the allottees wouldn't be paid? Is
that the way it worked?
In other words, if a lightning bolt caused the fire, the logger
wouldn't have to pay the allottee?
A No, I don't think so. I think the Bureau would reimburse the
allottee. I'm not sure about that, but I believe so.(())
Q Now, you talked about roads on the Reservation. Was a
comprehensive road system developed for the south part, south of the
river, on the Reservation?
A No.
Q You also spoke of reforestation along the railroad spurs that were
abandoned, and you said you felt that was adequate.
A That's right.
Q What species were coming in along those spurs, if you recall?
A Well, alder and hemlock, usually. Other species would be there,
but alder and hemlock were predominant.
Q Of any particular quality?
A Well, alder isn't too much of a commercial tree, but the others
would be commercial trees.
Q During your time, there was some tractor and truck logging?
A Yes.
Q Did the Bureau make the loggers replant abandoned logging spurs?
A No.
Q How does the width of these old railroad logging spurs compare to
the width of the truck logging spurs?(())
A Well, the truck logging spurs would be narrower than the railroad
right-of-way spurs.
Q Did you have any participation -- well -- you obviously had
participation in the Taholah sale in terms of your report there when you
worked on the appraisal?
A Yes.
Q What other role did you play with respect to that sale?
A I don't get what you mean?
Q Did you get involved in any negotiations?
A No.
Q There was no recruise; so, there was no cruising to be done?
A No.
Q Well, did you have any other connection with it in terms of doing
the advertisement or bids?
A No.
Q How about the Crane Creek sale?
A It would be the same thing.
Q Did you work on the appraisal for that, too, just like this one?
A Yes. That happened just shortly before I retired.
Q Did you also work on that one with the same person, Carthon
Patrie?(())
A Yes.
Q And your appraisal was done the same way and based on the same
things as the previous?
A Yes.
Q Did you get involved working on the contracts in any way, drafting
or negotiating?
A No.
Q In your analysis of State Forest Service and private sales, for
purposes of these appraisals, did you find that smaller sales as a
general rule were bringing higher prices than much larger sales?
A No. It would depend a lot on the sizes the sales were and the
location and the species of timber, but on the whole, there was very
little difference.
Q Rayonier bid on the Crane Creek contract, as you probably recall,
and forfeited a bid and then rebid it several years later and then got
it.
A Yes.
Q Did you get involved in any negotiations --
A No.
Q I was going to say, "with Rayonier involving the sale?"
A No.
Q Did anybody from your office?
A Yes; the superintendent and supervisor of Forest were(()) both
involved and possibly the head of the Land department.
Q They were involved in talking to Rayonier --
A Yes.
Q -- about the contract?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether any of those discussions led to any changes in
the contract between the time of the original offering and the
forfeiture and the subsequent time?
A No, I don't.
Q Was Aloha the logger on some of the old units?
A Yes.
Q How was their performance record on this?
A Very good.
Q Were you involved in the same way with the offering of the Queets
unit? That is, did you work on an appraisal for that?
A Just about.
Q Was there a report like that for the Queets unit as well at that
time?
A I didn't, no. There was one prepared, but not by me.
Q You spoke before of the allottees coming into your office to sign
powers of attorney and that you had(()) sent out letters to them.
A That's right.
Q What would you tell an allottee if he came into talk to you about
it? Did you advise him --
A I never advised him one way or the other. I would explain the
situation, and he made up his own mind.
I never advised anyone on their timber sales, but I did advise a lot
of them on fee patents and not to take them out.
Q After you explained it to them, did any not sign the power of
attorney?
A I don't recall one.
Q You said you discouraged them from taking out fee patents?
A I did.
Q Was this before the change in policy of the Bureau in the middle
'50's?
A Well, it was before and during that policy.
Q Did the allottees take your advice?
A Not many.
Q How did they end up coming to you on a fee patent? Wouldn't they
go to Realty?
A Early in the deal, we didn't have any Realty. It was in the early
'50's that they had a Realty branch.
Q So, before that they would have had to come to Forestry(()) to get
a fee patent?
A That's right.
Q The allottees also had to sign individual timber contracts based on
the overall contract?
A Yes.
Q How was that handled?
A Well, usually about the same as the powers of attorney. They were
in the office because they were notified after the sale had been made
that they would need their signature and a lot of them came in, and some
were contacted in different places; some sent them in by mail.
Q Did any sign a power of attorney and then not sign the individual
contract?
A Not any that I ever knew of.
Q Were powers of attorney signed after the main contracts were
entered?
A No; it was before, before they were advertised, even.
Q Was the supervised sale alternative available them, too?
A Not until the late '50's.
Q So, you didn't get involved in that?
A Not very much. I think I made three appraisals for supervised
sales just before I retired, and turned them in to the Land division.
What became(()) of them, I don't know.
Q So, if an allottee came to you and wanted a fee patent, you weren't
able to advise them about a supervised sale because you say they didn't
have them?
A No; I couldn't because I was practically through when those things
started.
Q Were allottees advised when they came in to see you or other people
in the office that if they didn't sign the power of attorney or didn't
sign the individual contract, it was likely that their timber wouldn't
be cut for many years?
A Well, I can't speak for everyone in the office, but I can for
myself: no.
Q Are you familiar with the road construction requirements in the
Taholah and Crane Creek contracts?
A No, I'm not. I think that's handled by the Roads department.
Q With the work you did on the Taholah and Crane Creek units, did you
do any enforcement of road violations or scaling violations?
A No.
Q Did you say you did check scaling or pick up scaling?
A I did check scaling and pick up scaling and scaling on the
landings, just as needed.
Q But you weren't involved in enforcement of contract(()) terms?
A In a general sense, yes, but that was usually left up to the guy in
charge of the operation.
Q You spoke of the Bureau's fire protection systems and procedures
before. Did you find during your time in working for the Bureau before
the fire protection responsibilities were shifted basically to the
State, that there had been any problems in fighting fires because of
inadequate road systems?
A No. I wouldn't say there had been any problem. Of course, some
areas were distant from any logging operation; then, you had a problem.
But roads and railroads had speeders on them which would help
transport fire equipment and, after they went to truck logging, they
always kept at least one big tank, not less than 1,200 gallons of water
at each landing, and other fire equipment, pumps, and so forth.
Q So, you never had a problem with a fire in an inexcessible area?
A Yes; you always have a problem with one in an inexcessible area.
Q Did you ever have an inexcessible fire while you were working in
the Reservation?
A Yes. In 410000, we had quite a few of them.(())
Q When you worked on the Taholah and Crane Creek units, how many men
did the Bureau have out in the field?
A Just on those two units?
Q Yes; on a day-to-day basis.
A Well, from day to day I would say about one man that was on the
unit every day. The scaling wasn't done on the unit; it was brought to
a scaling platform and there the scaling was done. So, there would be
from one to two men on the scale -- we'll say three -- but the guys on
the scale wouldn't necessarily be actually on the units.
Q Did you ever find that, while you were working on the Taholah and
Crane Creek units, there weren't enough men assisting you or working
with you on those units?
A No. I think we were pretty adequately supplied with men. That was
in the early stages of development of those units.
Q You testified earlier that you felt the under crews, or you said
the old crews, didn't have any long-term economic effect on the
allottees.
A I don't believe so because the timber was all scaled; so, I can't
see why that would make any difference.
Q Would it have affected the road construction allowance?
A How do you mean?(())
Q If there was much more timber on the Reservation than you
originally thought and there was no provision in the contract to cut off
the road allowance at a certain point, wouldn't that excessive timber
have meant that the road allowance would have increased over the course
of the contract?
A Well, I can't see how it would. If the timber were sold on cruise,
it would make an awful difference, but as long as each individual log
was scaled, I can't see how.
Q The road allowance is based on cost per thousand feet.
A That's right.
Q How about the advance payments? Would it have affected the advance
payments?
A Yes, it would have.
Q It would have reduced them; is that correct?
A No. It would increase them if there is more timber.
Q I mean, the fact that a lesser figure was used because you didn't
know how much was there.
A Yes; true.
Q Did you ever get involved in working on logging plans or approving
the operators' logging plans for the Reservation?
A Just in a minor way. Their logging plans were turned in(()) to the
Forest supervisor, and often I think they went on to the district
supervisor.
Q Did you or somebody at the Bureau talk to the allottees about the
logging plans, improving them?
A I never did, no.
Q Did you understand the pricing system in the Taholah and Crane
Creek -- I'm not asking you to explain it, but can you understand how it
worked in those days?
A Yes.
Q In looking at this Exhibit B and comparing it to the actual Taholah
contract, I noticed some differences. For example, the minimum cut
appeared to be increased from 15 million board feet to 20 million. The
order of advance payments, for example, was reversed from 10 percent, 15
percent, and 20 percent to the reverse.
A I know that.
Q How did that come about?
A I wouldn't have the slightest idea. On that subject -- now, this
is my opinion -- it was done to get more money for the allottees on the
50 percent advance payments so that they could get that big payment
first rather than wait six years.
Q Do you know why the minimum cut was increased?
A No, I don't.
Q The contract as it's set forth in there and as it was(()) written
has minimum prices in it below which stumpage payments can't fall.
A That's right.
Q How were those arrived at?
A Well, surveys of the industry.
Q How do you mean "surveys of the industry"?
A Well, just the same as they did for your maximum prices. The
minimum prices established in the Grays Harbor area would prevail on
most of these.
Q You mean, you looked at other contracts to find out what the floor
was on those?
A That's right.
Q Did you have an opportunity to look at this 470000 report of yours
that I gave you a copy of before the lunch break?
A Oh, yes. I remember.
Q I just want to ask a couple of questions about that.
First of all, is it a follow-up report to this 460000 one?
A Yes.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: I'd like to mark one copy Exhibit C.
(Exhibit No. C was marked for
identification.)
Q Now, in here you say that as of 470000, when I guess(()) this was
written, the cut over lands wouldn't be ready for harvest in less than
40 years; is that correct?
A That's right.
Q Now, on what did you base that estimate?
A Well, on the amount of reproduction and the rate it was growing and
so forth.
Q Were you assuming a predominant species in the second rotation that
would give you that 40-year figure?
In other words, the growing cycle of which species were you relying
on in coming to that figure?
A Principally, the species that would bring in revenue the quickest,
which would be hemlock.
Q And hemlock has an average growing cycle on the Reservation of
about how long?
A Well, if there hasn't been a fire, it's proven on the Crane Creek
unit, it was from 210000 to about 500000 -- no -- about 600000 when they
logged the stuff that had been blown down in 210000. So, that will give
you about 50 years.
Q Hemlock would be ready for harvest in 50 years?
A It would be harvested in that time.
Q As saw timber?
A That's right. It was big enough for saw timber, but much of it
went for pulp, I think.(())
Q Was pulp bringing better prices?
A No, I don't think so, but primarily the timber off the Crane Creek
unit was logged by Rayonier, and all of the pulp timber went to the pulp
mill.
Q Did you base your estimate on the fact that you considered the
southern portion of the Reservation adequately stocked?
A No, I wouldn't say that it was adequately stocked. Some places
were over stocked and some places way under stocked.
Q In here, you estimated about 2,225,000,000 feet of timber remaining
on the north portion of the Reservation left to be cut as of that time.
A That's right.
Q Where did that estimate come from?
A From the old cruise.
Q Was it updated in any way?
A No.
Q Would that area have included Crane Creek, Taholah, Queets, and
Boulder Creek? Is that what you were speaking of as north?
A Anything unsold north of the river.
Q And that would consist of those four units I mentioned: is that
correct?
A Yes.(())
Q Are you generally familiar with the estimated volume in the
advertisements and in the contracts for Crane Creek and Taholah?
A In a general way, yes.
Q Are you aware that the offering of those four units at that time
totaled about 1,775,000,000 board feet? So, in other words, it was less
than your figure.
I'm wondering why. I thought those had relied on the 160000 cruise.
What I'm asking is: Why the difference?
A I couldn't explain.
Q In this report, you analysed a number of plans for selling the
timber north of the river. One was to have the United States purchase
the entire Reservation and pay the allottees for it; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And you said that the Indian residents of the Reservation strongly
opposed that plan, and that's why it wasn't adopted.
A That's right.
Q Was any consideration given to selling the timber only to the
United States and not the land?
A No, I don't think so.
Q What other alternatives were considered generally for handling that
timber?(())
A Well, smaller sales were about the only alternative we had.
Q What about a co-op arrangement or corporation?
A That was considered and turned down quickly.
Q By the Indians?
A By the allottees. They weren't all Indians.
Q Some allottees weren't Indians?
A That's right.
Q How and where did the Bureau discuss these alternatives with the
Indians? Were they discussed at Taholah?
A I know of two meetings at Taholah at which they were discussed, and
I believe there was one in the area office in Hoquiam.
Q How did the Bureau go about notifying the Indians of the meetings?
A Well, they notified -- I think now Joe could answer that question
better than I, but at that time they notified the tribal council first,
and they notified as many allottees -- and I don't think 100 percent of
them were notified of the meetings -- but as many as could be contacted
were.
Q Do you have any feel for how many that was?
A No, I wouldn't have any.
Q You were saying Joe could answer; is that Joe Jackson?
A Yes.(())
Q He didn't come to the Reservation, though, until 690000?
A I know, but your question was pretty general.
Q I was speaking strictly in terms of the time you were there and,
more specifically, of the proposals you mentioned in your reports.
A I misunderstood.
Q Is your answer still the same as to the meetings?
A Yes.
Q I'm talking strictly about before these Crane Creek and Taholah
contracts were entered into, and I guess that's the period of 470000,
460000, to 500000 when these things were considered.
A Okay.
Q So, you said there were two meetings that you know of.
A Two in Taholah and one in Hoquiam.
Q Three total?
A Three total that I know of.
Q Were all the proposals presented at one time to the Indians?
A I believe so.
Q Do you know how many -- just rough percentages or proportions --
allottees are members of the Quinault Tribe?
A Well, now, this is just a guess, but I would say 25 percent is
pretty high.(())
Q Were the non-tribal allottees present at those meetings?
A Some of them, yes.
Q Were there a lot as compared to the tribal people present at the
meetings?
A I think probably they would have been predominantly Quinault
people.
Q I'm sorry.
A The Quinault people there would be predominant in attendance.
Q Quinault tribal people?
A Yes.
Q Do any prominent allottees at that time stand out in your mind as
being present at those meetings and voicing opinions?
A Chief Jackson.
Q He was a tribal member?
A He was the Tribal Chief. Harry Shale -- he was a Queets Indian,
but he had a pretty good voice in tribal affairs of Quinault. He lived
up in the Queets area until a few years before his death, and then he
moved to Taholah.
Q Any others that you recall?
A Yeah; Capoeman, Father Joel, and Glen -- not Glen -- Horton. He
took a lot of interest in it. Also Frankie Pickernall, and there were
probably others(()) who have passed away by now. There aren't too many
of the old-timers left.
Q Now, if my understanding is correct, the people you mentioned were
tribal leaders?
A Yes.
Q In fact, I think they were all members of the tribal business
committee around that time?
A That's true.
Q Were any non-tribal allottees present and vocal that you recall
names of?
A Oh, yes. Oftentimes from Quileute, Oakville, Skokomish, Nisqually.
Many of them were allotted in the Quinault, but from a different tribe.
Q Do you know whether the Bureau scheduled meetings at the places
where these people lived, that is, their towns --
A Oftentimes.
Q -- to discuss these proposals?
A Yes.
Q Were those in addition to the three meetings that you mentioned
before?
A What do you mean "in addition"?
Q You said there were three meetings to discuss these proposals that
you were aware of.
A Yeah; two at Taholah and one at Hoquiam.(())
Q And I'm asking if there were additional meetings to discuss the
proposals.
A I don't recall any in any other place directly involved in these
timber sales, no. But meetings at different places that that could have
been discussed, I don't know.
Q Was there any difference in the tribal views versus the non-tribal
allottees' views on these proposals? Were they always the same? Were
they different?
A Oh, no. They never agreed on anything. Sure, there were
differences.
Q At these three meetings that you are familiar with, were the
allottees who were present representative of the larger body of
allottees at all the different reservations who had interests on the
Quinault, or were they mostly from, say, Chehalis?
A Well, I think that the Quinault attendance would be the heaviest.
Now, whether there were representatives from all the tribes, I wouldn't
even hazard a guess.
Q Now, in this corporation proposal that you say the allottees
disapproved of --
A Yes.
Q -- why was their approval necessary to do it?
A Well, it was their timber you were dealing with. They would be
consulted whether they wanted to do it one way(()) or another.
Q Do you know of any statute offhand that would require the Bureau to
do that?
A I don't know of any statute, no.
Q In your report you said that the allottees as a group expressed
their disapproval of this particular idea. Who is the group you're
speaking of? The tribal group?
A It was the tribal group.
Q Now, did the Bureau consider any other plans other than this
corporation for getting a steady income into the hands of the allottees
as opposed to the timber sale contracts where they would get a couple of
lump sums during the course of their life?
Were there any other annual payment-type arrangements, for example?
Was there any way to set out the advance payments on a yearly basis or
something like that?
A Not that I know of.
Q You also refer to lack of Indian interest in establishing a saw
mill.
A That's right.
Q Again, was this the tribal group you were speaking of?
A Yes. I would say that was pretty much a hundred percent tribal.
Q Well, the plan called for a tribal saw mill.(())
A That's right.
Q Was there a plan calling for an allottee saw mill?
A No.
Q You also refer to a plan where one prominant operator in Grays
Harbor was going to buy up one whole north part of the Reservation and
log it. Do you remember who that operator was?
A Polson.
Q And you said there were certain faulty aspects of his plan. Do you
recall what they were?
A The whole plan was faulty. He didn't want to make any advance
payments, or no payments at all to the allottee until such time as the
land was logged.
Q In your report again you said the leaders of the allottees urged
the immediate sale of the remaining timber so that they could get their
money in 10 to 15 years. Were you speaking of any specific leaders of
allottees?
A No.
Q Who made the presentation for the Bureau at these meetings? Was it
you?
A It was usually the superintendent or -- I think once -- from the
area office in Spokane and the superintendent of the Taholah agency.
Q Who was it at that time?
A I believe, George P. LaVatta.(())
Q Do you recall saying in that report that the 40-year rotation you
were talking about, or the 40 years before the second growth timber
would be ready for harvest, was based on a pulp wood rather than a saw
log rotation? Does that mean that you didn't expect that second growth
to be ready for saw log size?
A There would be some down in the trees ready, but as a whole, they
wouldn't.
Q Saw timber prices were naturally higher than pulp wood at that time
just like they are today; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Would any saw timber be ready for harvest at the end of the 40
years as opposed to using it as a pulp product?
A There would be some, yes; not a big percentage.
Q Enough to make a timber sale, a unit timber sale?
A No, I don't think so. Not a sale of any large volume, anyhow.
Q You made the statement that you felt it was essential 8r adequate
protection and prompt establishment of future crops of timber that the
clear cut areas be broken up by strips of green timber, in your report.
I assume you were speaking in terms of natural rather than artificial
regeneration?(())
A Yeah; natural.
Q Has it been done?
A It's been tried. We got the reproduction, but we lost a lot of
volume in breakage of timber in blow downs.
Q You also spoke of the small unit sales and said it would have been
difficult to balance the good and poor timber out and lay out natural
topographical units on that kind of a sale program. Why do you feel it
would have been hard to balance good and poor?
A Well, by opening up the tracts and building roads, people close to
the roads would get substantially better price than the people inland,
and a lot of them inland were on the small lots. You wouldn't be able
to sell at all on account of building the roads into the area.
Q You said that as the sales progressed from the most accessible to
the least accessible areas, ultimately, some of the smaller units would
be difficult to sell. To me that assumed that the smaller the least
accessible areas were, the poorer the timber.
A Yes; they would naturally get less on account of the cost of
getting to it.
Q You spoke also of a plan to sell the remaining timber in four
staggered units, staggered by time, plus(()) establishing a cedar saw
mill or shingle industry on the Reservation or near the Reservation, and
that that was violently opposed by members of the tribal council on the
ground that only one-quarter of the allottees would have received
immediately benefits.
What was the allottees' view of the plan, if you recall, as opposed
to the tribal's?
A Most of them were against it.
Q Was this one of the proposals that was presented at those same
meetings?
A At one of the meetings; I don't know which one.
Q Were different proposals presented at different meetings?
A Yes.
Q Rather than all of the same presented at each of the three?
A Usually, one proposal was presented at one particular meeting, and
then later on after another proposal would be worked up, that would be
brought to the attention of the allottees.
Q So, in other words, rather than presenting all of them as a broad
range of alternatives, the Bureau would work up one, take it to the
meeting, get the views, and go back?
A That's right. We only had one proposal at a time.(()) Until they
turned it down, why, it was a good proposal.
Q Was any consideration given to establishing a saw mill on a
corporation basis where all the allottees would own share?
A Not that I know of. Well, both times that the saw mill deal was
taken up, I think it was to be furnished by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the loan paid back, but the big hitch on that was: who is going to
pay for the timber from whose allotment?
Now, it was the understanding in our minds and everybody else's that
the saw mill would have to pay for the stumpage from profits, and the
allottee whose timber was cut and went to the saw mill would have to
wait for his payment until there was a profit from the saw mill, and the
cost of the saw mill would be paid back over a period of time to the
United States.
Q So, the plan would have called for the allottees to share in the
profits?
A Right.
Q How would their proportionate share be determined?
A Based on the amount of timber they delivered to the saw mill.
Q You say in the report again it would be easier to effect
development and operating economies on larger areas than several smaller
ones and that the allottees(()) will get higher stumpage rates on large
rather than small contracts, presumably because the cost would be less?
A That's right.
Q What operating economies are you referring to in the large versus
the small contracts?
A I'm not sure I understand your question.
Q Well, you seem to be saying, unless I'm wrong, that the loggers
could log more economically on large as opposed to smaller unit sales.
A Yes.
Q And that this would benefit the allottees because, in other words,
the economy is a scale? Is that what you were saying?
A Yes. It would be less overhead by larger sales and less chance of
an operator buying a tract and taking out a little bit and going broke,
which happened on that Milwaukie Trail unit. There were three different
operators on that.
Q That was the blow-down salvage operation?
A Yes. And the guy that had the original contract building the road
in there, it practically broke him. He took out very little timber.
The second contractor, I think, did better than that, and then we had
a salvage sale after that,(()) but that was mostly cull fir logs.
Q You refer also in your report to the administrative advantage of
having one large contract to administer, that is, the Bureau having one
large contract to administer rather than a number of smaller ones. How
important a factor was that in the decision?
A How what?
Q How important a factor was that in the decision?
A Well, it was important. It was a factor we felt should be brought
to the attention of the Commissioner.
Q You said that the contracts, of course, called for a large amount
of initial outlay by the operator.
A Yes, it does.
Q And, given a large unit size, the operator couldn't hope to charge
off the payments in less than 25 years by arranging his cutting to cut
all the allotments in that time. In other words, he couldn't in 25
years hit all of the allotments and get back his advance payments, in
essence?
A Yes.
Q Would proper forest management have allowed them to do that,
anyway, in other words, to go logging the separate allotments to get
back advance payments?
A Well, I'm not sure. I don't think I understand that question.
(())
Q Now, you concluded that report with an extensive discussion of the
lumber market at the time, and there was apparently heavy demand by the
operators of tying up large blocks of timber because of a need for
stumpage, I guess, after the war?
A Well, the demand was during the war, but immediately after the war,
the price of logs and lumber and everything else went down, but the
demand before this contract was written -- or during that time, the
demands were good -- but in less than year after that was written, the
demands weren't so much.
Q Well, at the time you wrote that in 470000, the demand was high,
and I believe you recommended that the area be offered in one large
unit; is that correct?
A That's right.
Q What happened to that proposal? Why wasn't it adopted?
A I don't know for sure.
Q You didn't get any feedback on what people thought above you?
A I can't recall any.
Q What happened to the demand, say, around the time the Taholah
contract was entered, around the beginning(()) of the Korean War?
A The demand picked up a little bit, but the demand wasn't back to
its original in World War II.
(Brief recess.)
Q Was the floating of a Federal loan, term loan, by the Tribe
considered to make advances to the older and needier people, the
allottees, before their timber could be cut? Was that ever considered
as an alternative proposal, do you recall?
A I don't know.
Q You spoke in your 460000 report, Exhibit B, about Aloha Lumber
Company saying that they would modernize and increase efficiency if they
won the Taholah contract; do you recall?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you know whether they ever did that?
A Yes, they did. They built a big saw mill and quite a good sized
shake and shingle mill.
Q Scaling on the Taholah and Crane Creek contracts during the early
years was done by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and then they switched
over to the Grays Harbor Scaling Bureau after that. Was any study made
of those years to compare actual grade recovery with the estimated grade
that was used for payment?(())
A The Indian service didn't have a grade. It was just a volume; you
never scaled on grade.
Q There was no way of ever examining grade?
A No.
Q Not even the loggers did anything about it, then, as far as grade
was concerned?
A No.
Q In your testimony earlier, you referred to some unallotted lands
that were logged on the -- I think you said -- the Moclips unit and
Point Grenville. In other words, they weren't totally allotted?
A They were fee patented even before the area was sold.
Q Was there unallotted land along with fee patent allotments?
A They had been allotted, but the owners got patents for them.
It will take you back quite awhile, but Standard Oil drilled a well
out at Moclips, and -- now this is all hearsay -- but they wanted to
place under contract -- I believe there was nine allottees in the family
of Burtran -- and as I understood it, Standard Oil was going to buy
these allotments. If they ever did commit themselves, I don't know, but
the sale was never made.(())
Then, the allottees asked to be reinstated into the Tribe, and their
landing would go back to allotted status. Well, I don't know who handed
down the decision, but all except one was rejected. It was a young lady
at that time by the name of Ella Vaughn. They reinstated her into the
Tribe, and her land went back to her ownership.
Q From fee patent back to a trust allotment, and all the rest were
rejected?
A That's right. Why I don't know. But on the Moclips unit -- that
was the Halbert family -- Vern works for the Indian service -- that's
one of them, but I've never heard what kind of a deal they had with
Standard Oil, but they formed a sort of a small corporation and was
going to get this land explored by Standard Oil, but the well turned up
dry and everything blew up.
But, as far as I know, the Halberts never asked to have their land
reinstated, but I think they sold it to Aloha when they were logging in
that area.
Q When logging occurred on the Point Grenville and Moclips unit
during the '20's, I had understood you to say earlier that some of that
land had not yet been allotted; in other words, there was a substantial
(()) block of land that was not allotted until about the early '30's,
apparently pending a Supreme Court decision on whether it could be
allotted.
My question is: who did the loggers pay when they logged timber off
unallotted lands?
A It was considered tribal land. On this exhibit here, this here,
this here (indicating), this was 1,100 acres in that status.
MR. MARSHALL: You're pointing to what unit?
THE WITNESS: Moclips.
MR. MARSHALL: On the south end of the Reservation?
THE WITNESS: What is now the experimental forest on Exhibit A.
That's right.
MR. NEELY: This is sometimes referred to as the -- what plantation?
THE WITNESS: Spruce orchard.
Q We also talked earlier about the performance of Aloha on some of
the old contracts.
A Right.
Q Were there ever years that you recall on Moclips or Point Grenville
contracts where Aloha didn't meet the minimum cut; do you recall?
A I believe that's true, but I don't recall what years.
HEL-007-0164-0323
HEL-007-0164-0323(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
750605 ; VOL 1
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
DEPOSITION
89 TO 93
GOLDSTEIN, JERRY R ; WILKINSON CRAGUN
Q You said you did check scaling and pick-up scaling on Crane Creek
and Taholah, and I guess other units.
A I did very little check scaling on the Taholah and Crane Creek, but
the other units, I did extensive scaling and pick-up scaling.
Q What types of errors did you find in scaling? Did you find
substantial percentage volume errors?
A No; very seldom. Occasionally, you would run across a carload or
a truckload that didn't see eye to eye with the original scaler, but, on
the whole, it was very satisfactory.
Q Did you ever have problems with non-branded logs or mixed brands?
A No.
Q How about sloppy scaling records? Any problem with that?
A No. You had to balance your scale book every night after work.
Q How about chalk branding? Any problem with that?
A No.
Q The timber scaling regulations that were attached to the contracts,
if you recall provide that unsatisfactory disposal of slash will be a
cause for the officer in charge to suspend the operations until the
condition is corrected.(())
Do you know whether that has ever been waived?
A I don't know that it's ever been waived, no.
Q Do you recall any disease problems or needs for precommercial
thinnings back in the older days?
A No. There was always an indication of mistletoe, but that was the
only thing, and that was very minor.
Q Did you ever have occasion to deal with the allottees on the Queets
unit after the Queets unit failed to attract a bid?
A No.
Q Did they come to see you about when they could expect their timber
to be sold or write to you?
A I'm sure some of them did, but who they were or when I couldn't
recall.
Q Do you recall any efforts of the Bureau to organize the allottees
as a group with which the Bureau could deal?
A Yes. At one time there was talk.
Q Do you remember what was done about it?
A Well, as I recall, most of the allottees didn't want to organize,
and why I don't know.
Q Now, I believe you testified to Mr. Marshall about living in
Moclips, and I think you said Aloha, too?
A Yes.(())
Q Right near or just off the Reservation, just south?
A Yes.
Q Did you get to know a lot of allottees due to the fact that you
lived close by the Reservation?
A No, not at that time. I got better acquainted after I was moved
into Hoquiam.
I traveled to five different reservations under the jurisdiction of
the Taholah agency, and then I made more contacts and met more people
than I did before.
Q Did you get to know many of the allottees personally?
A Hundreds of them.
Q Did you ever discuss timber matters with them?
A Many times.
Q How did you feel that they were able to understand what you were
talking about in terms of timber pricing or reforestation or whatever?
A They didn't understand. They would ask questions, and I'd do my
best to answer them.
Q Did you actually go out and see these people, or did they come to
see you?
A I never went out personally to see them, but in my trips to
different places, they would ask, "When is my allotment going to be
along?" and so on and so forth.
Q Was that the most frequent question?(())
A Yes.
Q Did they come and ask you for information or advice?
A Yes, off and on.
Q Of any particular kind that you recall?
A No, not in particular. I don't think they ever asked advice much
about the fee patent sales.
Q Do you have an idea of where those allottees lived? Was it right
on the Reservation or just off?
A Very few of them lived right on the Reservation, probably 150 at
Taholah and maybe 80 at Queets. That was it.
Q Where were the rest located?
A Scattered all over the country.
Q Mr. Marshall asked you about placing Indians in jobs, and you said
you had helped some get jobs in the Bureau and timber industry.
A A number of them.
Q Were there specific programs the Bureau had at that time to train
Indians or place them?
A No, no.
Q Did you run into problems with the numbers of heirs of allottees?
A You bet.
Q In what way?
A Well, a lot of the heirships have gone into white(()) ownership,
and we had trouble finding the heirs, but the more heirships, the more
problems.
Q Did you ever have anything to do with the reforestation program
where certain allottees were encouraged to deed their allotments back to
the United States in trust for the Tribe?
A That was in the Cook Creek unit.
Q Was that the only unit it was in?
A Yeah, as far as I know.
Q How did that work?
A I believe 13 allottees turned their title back to the government.
Q What did they get in return? What were they supposed to get?
A Not a thing; except the promise that it would be replanted.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: That's all we have.
HEL-007-0164-0323
HEL-007-0164-0323(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
750605 ; VOL 1
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
DEPOSITION
93 TO 95
MARSHALL, DAVID M ; US DEPT OF JUSTICE
BY MR. MARSHALL
Q Mr. McKeever, in the course of questioning, there was a reference
to the jams on the Moclips and Raft and Quinault Rivers that were
cleared out by the Bureau. Were those jams created by natural debris?
A No.(())
Q They weren't ascribable to logging?
A No, no.
Q Also, this morning in reference to fire protection, was there any
effort to build lookout towers, as far as the Bureaus were concerned?
A Yes. There were three steel towers erected in different spots on
the Reservation, and there was a fir tree topped at 150 feet and a house
put on top of that in the Cook Creek area for fire protection. At
first, we had a top tree on Lone Mountain with a cabin in it, and that
was later replaced with an 80-foot tower.
Q This replacement was one of the three steel towers you mentioned a
moment ago?
A Yes.
MR. MARSHALL: That concludes the questioning. Thank you, Mr.
McKeever. We appreciate your coming over and making yourself available
to give us this information.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: We thank you, also, and again we hope you will make
it to trial.(())
THE WITNESS: Oh, I hope not.
(Whereup at 3:25 p.m. the
deposition was concluded.)
Lester Clyde McKeever
HEL-007-0164-0323
HEL-007-0164-0323
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71 ; US COURT
OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
1 TO 1
A ; DEFENDANT
11
ALLOTMENT MAP OF THE QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION
BIA
000000
EX A
MAP OMITTED SEE ORIGINAL
ALLOTMENT MAP OF THE
QUINAIELT INDIAN RESERVATION,
WASHINGTON.
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71 ; US COURT
OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
; DEFENDANT
33
FOREST OFFICERS RPT COVERING PROPOSED SALE OF TIMBER TAHOLAH LOGGING
UNIT
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
460831
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71 ; US COURT
OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
C ; PLAINTIFF
67
FOREST OFFICERS RPT RE SALE OF TIMBER EXHIBIT NOT PRESENT
MCKEEVER, LESTER C ; BIA
470000
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
1 TO 9
HOBBS, CHARLES A ; WILKINSON CRAGUN
HELEN MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
Nos. 772-71, 773-71, 774-71, 775-71.
Deposition of VERNE F. RAY, a witness of lawful age, taken on behalf
of the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, pursuant to notice,
before Theresa M. Colomo, Notary Public, in the offices of Charles A.
Hobbs, Attorney-at-Law, 1735 New York Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C.,
at 10:10 a.m., Monday, 761220.
APPEARANCES:
CHARLES A. HOBBS, ESQ.
JERRY R. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
ROBIN A. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker
The Octagon Building
1735 New York Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
On behalf of the Plaintiffs(())
DAVID MARSHALL, Esq.
Indian Claims Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
ALSO PRESENT:
N. DEE TERRY
HERBERT R. HARVEY
ARNOLD STRICKON(())
WITNESS:
VERNE F. RAY
EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
Counsel for Plaintiff 3
Counsel for Defendant 9
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY:
Counsel for Plaintiff 91
Counsel for Defendant 95
DEPOSITION OF VERNE FREDERICK RAY TAKEN 761220
Mitchell-vs-U.S.A. U.S. Court of Claims Nos. 772-71, 773-71, 774-71,
775-71
PAGE LINE CHANGE FROM TO
12: 3 :Coleson :Colson
12: 6 :Erner :Erna
19: 8 :Wenatchie :Wenatchi
19: 22 :geen :been
20: 2 :thellate :the late
21: 22 :Corp :Corps
25: 12 :Hoppa :Hoopa
25: 15 :Hoppa :Hoopa
25: 16 :Hoppa :Hoopa
27: 17-18 and it wouldn't wouldn't affect :and it wouldn't affect
31: 7 :which were :which many were
33: 2 :reluctance because of reluctance :reluctance
33: 14 :involved then individuals :involved, then, individuals
39: 9 :or purchased by :or purchase by
40: 21 :allotments are fee patents :allotments or fee patents
58: 24 :(answer is omitted; presumably was "No.")
62: 2 :they :their
74: 5 ;comtemporary :contemporary
74: 8 :pot lash :potlatch
75: 11 :pot latch :potlatch
75: 17-18 :pot latch :potlatch
75: 19 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 4 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 5 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 6-7 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 8-9 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 11 :pot latch :potlatch
76: 23 :pot latch :potlatch
87: 2 :quantative :quantitative
87: 5 :discipline. Back in about :discipline -- back in about
87: 17 :quantatative :quantitative
87: 18 :quantatative :quantitative
93: 19 :would have referred to :would have preferred to(())
Whereupon,
having been called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and having
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified, as follows:
MR. HOBBS: This is a deposition of Dr. Verne F. Ray taken today in
lieu of testimony at trial by agreement between counsel for the
Government and counsel for the Plaintiff.
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Dr. Ray, would you state your name and address?
A. Verne Frederick Ray, 438 Pierce Street, Port Townsend,
Washington.
Q. In what year were you born?
A. 050000.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Consulting anthropologist.
Q. What is your educational background?
A. My bachelors degree was from the University of Washington. My
Ph.D from Yale University.
Q. When did you get your Ph.D degree?
A. 360000.(())
Q. When did you begin your working career in anthropology?
A. 280000.
Q. What was your general situation then?
A. At that time I joined the faculty of the University of Washington
and began my field research for the University of Washington.
Q. Could you very briefly tell us the highlights of your career in
anthropology?
A. I was a member of the faculty of the University of Washington
from the date that I indicated until the time of my retirement. I
served for several years as Dean of the graduate school of the
University of Washington. This was during the 1940's.
I went to Yale University as a member of the Department of
Anthropology, and served there as Professor of Anthropology, and
Director of the Human Relations Area Files, Research Director I should
have indicated, for several years, afterwhich I return to the University
of Washington faculty and served as Professor Anthropology and Chairman
of the Department of Anthropology until the time of my retirement.
Q. When was that?
A. About 650000.
Q. Dr. Ray, have you held any offices in professional(()) societies?
A. A number of such offices. They are listed in Appendix One of my
report, which is identified as Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1.
Q. Of them which do you consider the most significant?
A. I would say that the most significant position was the presidency
of the American Ethnological Society.
Q. In your anthropological studies and research what has been your
area of primary interest?
A. The North American Indians.
Q. Among those Indians in what, if any, areas did you concentrate?
A. The Indians of Northwest America.
Q. What states did this cover?
A. Particularly the State of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Northern
California.
Q. Are you familiar with the tribes associated with the Quinault
Reservation?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What are those tribes?
A. The Quinault Tribe, the Quileute, the Chehalis, the Chinook, and
the Cowlitz.
Q. What about the Makah?(())
A. The Makah are not primarily or basically associated with the
Quinault allottees of the Quinault Reservation, but that is to say
originally they were not allottees, but subsequently there was through
inheritance the bringing in of some Makah Indians into the Quinault
Reservation allotments.
Q. Are you familiar with the Makah?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Could you tell us the field work and publications you've done in
connection with these six tribes, that is, the five associated with the
Quinault Reservation and the Makah, very briefly, please?
A. My work with the Chinook Tribe began in 310000 and continued for
several years thereafter. My ethnographic publication of the Chinook
was entitled "Lower Chinook Ethnographic Notes." The date was 380000,
although publication had been held up for a few years due to the
depression.
A year earlier than that I published a paper entitled "The Historical
Position of the Lower Chinook in the Native Culture of the Northwest."
That was a comparative paper which was involved with not only the
Chinook but their relationship with other tribes and the development of
their culture in the Northwest generally.
The publication title "Culture Element Distributions,"(()) which was
issued by the University of California in 420000, contained data on all
phases of the aboriginal life of the Chinook Indians
Then at a later date I was asked to write an article for a book which
was to be published by the Oregon Historical Society in connection with
the Bicentennial, and I chose the subject which I titled "The Chinook
Indians in the Early 1800's." This was published by the Oregon
Historical Society in the book titled "The Western Shore" in 760000.
The Cowlitz work that I have done involved field work in the 1960's,
primarily, and the report on the Cowlitz Indians I titled "Handbook of
Cowlitz Indians." It was issued in Seattle in 660000, and commercially
reprinted in New York in 740000.
For the Chehalis Indians my field work was primarily in connection
with the Chinook and Cowlitz research, and some little information on
these tribes was already included in my Chinook ethnography, and the
research periods were primarily the 1930's and the 1960's.
For the Quinault Tribe my field work began in the early 1930's in
connection with my Chinook research, and in the course of working with
Chinook informants on the Quinault Reservation I got acquainted with
several aspects of the Quinault history and ethnology. I have done the
most extensive(()) work on the Quinault in connection with the Indian
Claims litigation. The period of my research in this connection was the
early 1950's, together with that which I mentioned for the 1930's.
For the Makah my field work was specialized in the areas of music and
mythology, and the period of time was the 1930's and the 1940's. I have
not yet published my material on the Makah.
The Appendix II in my report, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, lists my
experience with the Quinault allottees.
Q. Have you been an expert witness in litigations for any of these
such tribes?
A. Yes, for the Quinault, the Quileute, and the Cowlitz.
Q. When were you retained in this case, Dr. Ray?
A. In 720000, the month of January.
Q. What were you asked to do?
A. I was asked to inquire into the relationships between the
Quinault allottees and the United States, and to write a report on their
history and present status, and to render an opinion as to their
interests in their lands and timber and the manner in which those
interests were handled and protected by the United States.
Q. Have you submitted a written report?(())
A. Yes, Mr. Hobbs, the one I have referred to a couple of times,
Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1. The title of that report is "The Quinault
Allottees and the United States Government."
Q. Do you have any financial interest in the outcome of this
litigation?
A. No, I do not.
Q. How are you being paid in this case?
A. I'm being paid by the hour, plus expenses.
Q. And have you been paid your fee and expenses?
A. Yes, to date, except for the last statement, which was submitted
only a few days ago.
MR. HOBBS: Mr. Marshall, we offer Dr. Ray as an expert witness,
qualified to testify on the history and present status of the Quinault
allottees, and to offer an opinion on the question of their ability to
protect their interests.
MR. MARSHALL: Is Dr. Ray's report serving in lieu of direct
testimony?
MR. HOBBS: He will very shortly so testify.
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
9 TO 26
MARSHALL, DAVID M ; US DEPT OF JUSTICE
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Dr. Ray, you mentioned at the outset of your testimony the
Quinault, the Quileute, the Chehalis, the Chinook and the Cowlitz in
connection with the Quinault Reservation?(())
A. Yes, in connection with the allotments on the Quinault
Reservation.
Q. Now, weren't there some people from the Hoh and the Queets who
also shared in those allotments?
A. The Hoh were a subtribe, as was the Queets; the Hoh a subtribe
of the Quileute, and the Queets a subtribe of the Quinault.
Q. And the Queets' name is still carried down from the Queets in the
northwest part of the present reservation; isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are Queets outside of the reservation; are there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, has their identity as a tribal group been merged wholly with
that of the Quinault?
A. It has not been merged with that of the Quinault. It always was
merged in the sense of its being a subtribe, and that relationship
exists today.
Q. Now, the Hoh did not have their aboriginal occupancy on what is
now the Quinault Reservation, did they?
A. I would want to look at a map to see that there is no overlapping
at all. I think not.(())
MR. HOBBS: David, you realize this is voir dire occasion, not
cross-examination?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
MR. HOBBS: Okay. Fine.
MR. MARSHALL: I'm just trying to get at the extent of this witness's
knowledge in respect to what does make up the tribal affiliations of the
Quinault allottees.
MR. HOBBS: Right.
MR. MARSHALL: He testified, of course, on his qualifications. I got
the impression he was limiting it to those five tribes that he
specifically named.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Now, you've made reference to the Makah. It's the case, is it
not, that the Makah also are among those who have some blood affiliation
with the Quinault allottees?
A. Well, blood affiliation is not a term that is appropriate or
applicable in anthropological analyses. Degrees of ancestry, yes.
Throughout the Northwest, and as a matter of fact, throughout the
American Indians generally there were degrees of ancestry from tribes
other than the ones in which individuals claimed for their main
association. The answer in that sense, Mr. Marshall, to your question
is yes.
Q. Now, there are some who have done more -- who have(()) had much
more familiarity with the Makah than you, are there not?
A. Well, Elizabeth Colson worked with the Makah extensively, and has
written on the Makah. Her approach was not the basic ethnological
approach, but she gathered a great deal of material about the Makah, and
so did Dr. Erna Gunther, but Dr. Gunther has written very little on the
Makah.
Q. What do you consider the basic ethnological approach?
A. The basic ethnological approach is a work on the total culture.
Q. And what is the extent of what you regard as your familiarity
with the Makah?
A. I indicated that my specialization was within two small fields,
and not broadly ethnological, music and mythology.
Q. And when was that?
A. I indicated the dates, I believe, the 1940's primarily.
Q. Now, you referred to your work on the Quinault Reservation as
being primarily derived from Chinook informants?
A. No, no information whatsoever on the Quinault derived from
Chinook informants. When I was working with the Chinook I found several
of them resident on the Quinault Reservation, and that took me to the
Quinault Reservation, and during that period of time I got acquainted
with a good many Quinault and(()) talked to them about their ways of
life. I was interested in a comparison with the Chinook, but it was not
my object to make a basic investigation of the Quinault. That had been
done one year earlier by my colleague, Dr. Ronald Olson, that is to say,
his publication on the Quinault Indians had appeared one year earlier.
Q. So did you have any informants on the Quinault Reservation?
A. Yes.
Q. And who were they?
A. I wouldn't remember the names after this length of time.
Q. And how many were there?
A. I talked to perhaps a dozen or 15 of them in terms of their
aboriginal culture, but I would repeat that the object was to learn
something of comparative significance with the Chinook, and not to
obtain information for purposes of a publication on the Quinault, which
I had no intention of doing as a duplication of Dr. Olson's work.
Q. And what time was this?
A. In the 1930's.
Q. In the early '30's?
A. Yes.(())
Q. And how old were these informants?
A. The informants that I worked with were older ones in the tribe.
Most of them at that time did not know their ages. They did not know
when they were born. They had not kept track in terms of years. It's
difficult to estimate the ages of Indian peoples, especially that many
years ago when the nutrition and medical attention and so on led people
to look older, to me, than perhaps they actually were.
Q. Of course you were younger then, and you would agree that when
you're younger people look older?
A. I would agree.
Q. Now, at that time would there by any of those people left who
were you informants then? They probably all died years ago.
A. Oh, without question.
Q. Now, when was it, Dr. Ray, you mentioned that you were Dean of
the Graduate School?
A. Yes, in the '40's.
Q. The early '40's?
A. The late '40's.
Q. I notice on the first page of your vitae, Plaintiff's Exhibit
VR-1, you refer to yourself as Associate Dean.
A. The title was Associate Dean. What I think I said a(()) while
ago was that I served as Dean of the Graduate School. There was no
other dean. I was the only person in the administrative position as
head of the graduate school.
Q. And how long was that?
A. About four years.
Q. Now, what was the nature of your work as Research Director in the
Human Relations Area Files?
A. I was in charge of the staff that was engaged in assembling
information in all fields of the social sciences for purposes of a large
project sponsored by and financed by 15 American universities, and which
involved the bringing together of data from all significant published
sources on the tribes selected for study, the purpose being to work from
place to place over the world to provide information on the least known
of the tribes -- of the peoples of the world.
Q. And did any of that work encompass the Quinault allottees?
A. I don't remember whether we included the Quinault Tribes there or
not. There were some, oh, 100, 200, 300 groups of people that we
covered, but I don't recall.
Q. Where was this?
A. The headquarters were at Yale University, and the publications
were there. There are now -- the organization is(()) still active.
Before I left I recall there was something in excess of one million
pages that we had published.
Q. And during what period were you Research Director?
A. That was in the early '50's.
Q. Two years?
A. Four years.
Q. Four years.
A. Three years in residence, and one year out of residence.
Q. And the three years in residence, was it a full time job?
A. It was more than a full time job, Mr. Marshall.
Q. Now, when was it you were President of the American Ethnological
Society?
A. Oh, I don't remember that date. I could look it up for you, if
you like.
Q. How long were you president?
A. Two years, as I recall.
Q. Well, if you don't remember the date, it must have been some time
ago then?
A. Yes. It was in the '50's, I think.
Q. How long of a term did the president serve?
A. One year at a time.(())
Q. That was in the early '50's?
A. I don't remember whether it was the early '50's or the late
'50's. I think it was the early '50's. Yes, it was the early '50's.
Q. I believe in your testimony a while ago you mentioned "Culture
Element Distributions"?
A. Yes.
Q. And I notice that on page 3 of your vitae you list that under
books. Isn't that more what is known as a monograph rather than a book?
A. All monographs are books.
Q. Regardless of the content or the size?
A. The way in which I use the word "book" is in terms of its
physical make-up, and monographs vary from a relatively small number of
pages to very thick volumes.
Q. And is that regardless of whether it's a hardback or paperback?
A. Oh, yes, indeed.
Q. Now, at the top of page 4 of your vitae you list among your books
a 100 page publication entitled "The Monominee Tribe of Indians." What
was the purpose of that publication?
A. Indian Claims litigation. Let's see, was that Indian Claims or
was that Court of Claims? It was Indian Claims.(())
Q. Is that item available for purchase?
A. Yes, it is. No. It was printed separately by the Monominee
Tribe, but they did not print enough copies, and by the time they had
distributed it to their tribal members there were none left, there was
none left.
Q. Now, the second item you mention there is a publication you
referred to in the course of your testimony. This is on page 4 of
Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, "Handbook of Cowlitz Indians."
A. Yes.
Q. Now, isn't the Garland Publishing Company, the process they use
in publishing books, isn't that a photocopy process.
A. I don't know.
Q. You've seen their publications, have you not?
A. Yes, and I have served supervisor of publications and editor for
a good many series, and I know that sometimes it is virtually impossible
to tell whether the thing has been set up in letter press or has been
done by photographic process. I think they use a protographic process.
I am not sure.
Q. And the Garland Publishing Company is simply compiling and
reproducing by photocopy process the reports, parts of the transcripts,
some of the briefs, appendices, and so on, in(()) cases for the Indian
Claims Commission; isn't that true?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, the "Handbook of Cowlitz Indians," that was prepared, was it
not, for the Cowlitz case before the Commission?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And likewise, isn't that true of the third item, "Ethnohistory
Notes on the Columbia, Chelan, Entiat and Wenatchi Tribes"?
A. No. That was originally written in manuscript form for a
separate publication by me. The form in which it was published was a
revised form for purposes of the Indian Claims litigation involving
these tribes.
Q. And the one which Garland has published is the one that was
submitted to the Commission?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Ray, the third item, "Ethnohistory of the Joseph Band of Nez
Perce Indians," also reproduced by photocopy by Garland Publishing,
that's another report for an Indian Claims Commission case, is it not?
A. That they are reproduced by photocopy is something that I can't
answer, because I don't know. As far as its having been prepared for an
Indian Claims case, that is correct.
Q. Now, what was the date when that was prepared for the(()) Indian
Claims case?
A. It would have been the late '60's or the early '70's. I don't
remember.
Q. And how about the date for the item that precedes that, "The
Ethnohistory Notes on the Columbia, Chelan, Entiat and Wenatchee
Tribes"?
A. That was, as I recall, in the '60's.
Q. The early '60's?
A. I can't say.
Q. And what was the date that you prepared the "Handbook of Cowlitz
Indians"?
A. As I recall, that was in the '60's also, but I would have to look
it up in my records, which are in Port Townsend, Washington, to give you
the exact time.
Q. Now, on page 4 you begin a section which is headed "Printed
Reports." The second one is the one on the Nez Perce Indians in 620000.
When was that written?
A. These dates all relate to the times at which the books were --
the reports rather -- were written, except that in some instances the
first writing was done in the preceding year, but the completion was in
the year indicated.
Q. They were printed right after completion?
A. Yes.(())
Q. Now, in what publication does the Nez Perce report appear?
A. In the report submitted in connection with the Nez Perce
litigation before the Indian Claims Commission.
Q. And the Modoc Indian report, that also is an Indian Claims
Commission report?
A. Yes, it was, but the Modoc is the subject of a separate book that
was published under the title of "Primitive Pragmatists" in 630000 as a
University of Washington Press publication.
Q. And the Hoopa Indians, was that also an Indian Claims Commission
report?
A. Yes.
Q. And the opening of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. Yes, Mr. Marshall. Should I say that the heading "Printed
Reports," I believe in all instances, refer to reports that were
published in this connection, that is, Indian Claims, either the Indian
Claims Commission or the Court of Claims, except for the two at the top
of page 5, which were reports that were published -- the reports were
printed first of all for the Colville Confederated Tribe and the Corps
of Engineers, and subsequently the final report in that connection has
been(()) published as a book.
Q. Now, have you appeared as a witness in any of the Colville
litigation before the Indian Claims Commission?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you appeared as a witness in any of the Colville litigation
in the Court of Claims?
A. I'm trying to recall whether any of the Colville litigation ever
reached or originated in the Court of Claims. I don't think so, but it
could be.
Q. And these --
A. Yes, Mr. Marshall. Excuse me. The Colville litigation in
connection with the Division of the Proceeds from a judgment that was
appropriated by the Congress for both the Colville Tribes and the Yakima
Tribes was by special legislation sent to the Court of Claims for final
resolution.
Q. Now, on page 6 of your vitae, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, you refer
to books edited or co-authored. Now, do you regard those terms as
synonymous, Dr. Ray?
A. No. That's why I used two terms.
Q. Which of the books did you edit?
A. All of them.
Q. And which of the books did you co-author?
A. The Point Hope Eskimo, Malaya, Land and Polity in(()) Indian
Family Structure.
Q. Now, in what sense were you a co-author of those books?
A. I did major rewriting on all of them.
Q. What is the difference between major rewriting and editing?
A. One is a co-authorship and the other is editing.
Q. Well, isn't it the custom to be listed as an author if you're the
co-author?
A. No. There are many persons who contribute in that fashion, even
to the extent of being equal co-author who, through modesty or deference
to the man who did the field work, or the woman who did the field work,
does not include his or her name. These books were in no instance ones
in which I was an equal co-author, but in all of the ones that I
mentioned, except the last one, I did extensive rewriting, always with
the collaboration and approval of the principal author.
Q. Now, what was your role as editor with respect to the other
books?
A. The usual functions of an editor, plus the selection of those
manuscripts which were submitted and chosen for publication.(())
Q. What do you regard as the usual functions of an editor?
A. The usual functions of an editor, Mr. Marshall, have been set
forth in book after book after book, but, Mr. Marshall, I will try to
make it as brief as I can. Examining every word and every line of the
book, making sure that the expression is -- the author's ideas are
clear, making sure that the grammatical structure is as adequate as one
can achieve, reading the page proofs and the galley proofs for errors,
concerning oneself with the format of the book, and with the mode of its
publication.
Q. Does your name appear as editor in any of these books? You say
you edited all of them.
A. In all of them, yes.
Q. As editor?
A. In all of them.
Q. You're designated as editor in all of them?
A. That is correct.
MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Hobbs, I have other questions that pertain to this
witness's expertise, but they are so interwoven with cross-examination
in general that I think we could consider this as completing my formal
voir dire.
MR. HOBBS: Well, we again offer Dr. Ray. What would(()) be your
response? Do you accept him as qualified to testify?
MR. MARSHALL: Well, I might have one or two other questions.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Dr. Ray, how many years have you been appearing for the Indian
Claims Commission?
A. The first year was 510000, as I recall.
Q. And have you ever testified for any party before that Commission
other than an Indian group or tribe?
A. Yes, for the United States.
Q. And in what category was that?
A. That was in the Hoopa case.
Q. And when was that?
A. Approximately five years ago.
Q. Anything other than the Hoopa case?
A. No, only the Hoopa case.
Q. And that was before the Commission or the Court of Claims?
A. That was before the Court of Claims.
Q. Did you submit a report in that case?
A. Yes, I did.
THE WITNESS: Am I talking loud enough?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.(())
MR. MARSHALL: That's all that I have on voir dire.
MR. HOBBS: Do you have a response to our offering Dr. Ray? Do you
accept him, reserve judgment, or object?
MR. MARSHALL: I'll reserve judgment on his qualifications for this
particular situation.
MR. HOBBS: Let's take a five-minute break.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. HOBBS: Okay. Are we ready to proceed?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
26 TO 41
HOBBS, CHARLES A ; WILKINSON CRAGUN
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Dr. Ray, you have indicated that your report is this volume
entitled "Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1," the blue bound report. Do you
intend this to be your sworn testimony on direct examination?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Are there any errors in it that you would like to correct?
A. Yes, there are some, Mr. Hobbs, and I have made a list, an errata
sheet.
MR. HOBBS: I will hand out an errata sheet to counsel for the
Government and his associates. This is intended to be stapled in the
front of Dr. Ray's report. It lists eight(()) errors, and is
self-explanatory, except that I will ask a couple of questions about
them.
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Dr. Ray, would you turn to page 41 of your report?
A. Yes.
Q. At the bottom there is a quotation there that says, "Please tell
me what is a BIA," and your errata sheet, Item No. 4, says that it
should read, "Please tell me what is BIA." How did that error come
about?
A. That was a typographical error made by the typist who fa-led to
follow the copy and inserted the letter "A", which did not appear in the
copy.
Q. And on page 101 -- without turning back in your report, but still
referring to the previous point, does the difference between "a BIA" and
plain "BIA" change your handling of the quotation, or anything you said
about this matter in any way?
A. It doesn't change it in any way, and it wouldn't effect at all my
conclusion with respect to it.
Q. Now, back to page 101 there is a sentence that begins three lines
from the botton, begins, "Another feature," and continues over onto the
next page down to -- well, the first line, "To the Allottee," and your
errata sheet calls for all of that to be deleted, and it also calls for
the deletion in the(()) second line from the top of the words "the
situation."
Can you explain the reason for this deletion?
A. Yes. Upon rereading this section of my report I concluded that
the statement as it appears did not properly represent what it was that
I wanted to say, and that there was some question as to its being
supported by the substantive materials, and so I decided simply to take
it out.
The sentence on page 102, where the two words "the situation" are
deleted, is simply to make it a whole sentence introducing that which
follows.
Q. Dr. Ray, on what sources is your entire report based?
A. My report is based on my own field research, upon the
bibliographical and archival materials which I have collected for
purposes of this study, upon the exhibits that have been assembled for
the case, and upon my general anthropological knowledge and information.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Ray, were the allottees of the Quinault
Reservation capable of protecting their interests in their timbered
allotments prior to March of 680000?
A. No, in my opinion they were not so capable.
Q. Will you summarize the reasons that lead you to this conclusion?
A. The first thing that I would mention in that connection,(()) Mr.
Hobbs, would be ignorance on the part of the allottees of the principles
of forest management. Then I would cite their lack of familiarity with
their allotments, because they did not reside on the allotments, and
because of the distances separating their places of residence from their
allotments. the distances which were sometimes quite great, and upon the
difficulties involved in looking precisely at an allotment in an
extensively forested area where it was not possible without survey to
locate the boundary lines.
I would also mention the intertribal differences between the several
groups of people who came to constitute the Quinault allottees, and the
lack of any common organization which would bring them together so as to
permit common action. Then, too, the fact that a single allotment is
too small for a timber management plan, its being only 80 acres, and the
absence of any organization, as I have just indicated, that would permit
an allottee to block out larger areas of timber. There was, therefore,
no place for an overall manager for the handling of timber allotments
and for timber management.
Coupled with this is the fact that there was, indeed, such timber
management of large blocks of timber, but this was by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The allottees were not involved in management in that
connection, and they naturally(()) relied upon the Bureau of Indian
Affairs for such management.
There were also the problems of communication between the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, which I have just indicated handled all of the
management of the timber, problems of communication that arose from the
cultural differences that I have already mentioned, and also from
conflicts between one group and another. Aboriginally the groups
involved were not overly friendly with one another in all instances, and
there were language differences of a major sort.
There remained linguistic deficiencies on the part of many allottees
so as to impede -- not so as to impede, but that did, in fact, impede
their communication with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and in some
respects with one another.
There were writing deficiencies which kept them from preparing
memoranda for one another, or writing to the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
although many letters were written. These letters are notable in
demonstrating the writing deficiencies of most, but not all, of the
allottees.
There was the problem of technical language utilized by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and its technical employees which made their
communications difficult for the allottees to understand, and made them
relatively meaningless in many instances, even though the Bureau itself
might have made an(()) attempt, and indeed did make an attempt, to write
what it was that they thought the allottees ought to know and could
understand.
There were the generalized bureaucratic barriers, the kinds of
patterns of behavior that are typical in any kind of organization, such
as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, of which many were distinctly atypical
insofar as the Indians were concerned, and made it difficult for them to
communicate meaningfully and extensively with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
The problem of distance, geographical distance, was a significant one
too. The main office for the Quinault allottees was and is located in
Everett, Washington, which is about 200 miles by road from the main
village of the Quinault Reservation, and the main village of the
reservation is more or less central to the allotments, although a bit
further to the south, perhaps, but there was that long distance, a
distance of 50 miles or so, to the sub-agency at Hoquiam, Washington,
and this impeded the contacts that might have been productive, but that
just didn't take place as often as they might have.
The reason that the Indians did not visit these offices as often as
they might was not only the matter of distance and cost, because there
was quite a bit of mobility(()) on the part of these people who were
sedentary as to residence, but there were also the factors that I have
already mentioned that made them disinclined to make these long trips
where they felt, and they unquestionably did, that in many instances it
would be to no avail.
I think that covers most of the reasons that occur to me.
Q. Did you perceive on the part of the allottees any attitude of
hopelessness or --
MR. MARSHALL: I object to that. That is a leading question. If you
want to rephrase the question as to what attitude he perceived --
MR. HOBBS: All right. I withdraw the question.
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Did you perceive any attitude on the part of the allottees
relating to their relationship with the Bureau, and if so, could you
describe it?
A. Well, both the allottees and the Bureau were of good nature with
respect to the relationships, but certainly the allottees felt that
there was great difficulty, for reasons that I have already explained,
and because of general cultural distance, great difficulty in making
productive relationships with the Bureau, and this did lead to the
feeling on the part(()) of many of what I have already expressed, Mr.
Hobbs, that is, reluctance to engage in attempts of communication
because of the feeling that nothing was going to come of it in many
instances.
Q. Are you familiar with a report that Dr. Barbara Lane has written
in this case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Very briefly, how does your approach compare with hers, and how
do your results compare?
A. The approaches are different. My approach is historical and
ethnological in a generalized sense, whereas Dr. Lane's approach
involved the interviewing of a considerable number of allottees
statistically selected as representative. Her approach and
investigation involved, then, individuals and the results were the
consequence of putting together the information got from these numerous
individuals, whereas my approach was one of an in depth investigation,
where I wasn't concerned with individual behavior at all, but was
concerned with group behavior. In other words, we dealt with the same
general problems and questions, and our object was to get answers that
related to the same problems and questions, but our approaches were
somewhat different, and the approaches were complementary and
supplementary, that is, hers added to mine, mine added to(()) hers. We
did not attempt to duplicate the work of one another. It was only when
it came to the conclusion that there was a possibility of duplication,
but in that instance the more proper term would be corroboration or lack
of corroboration.
Q. How similar were the results that you two reached?
A. The results were remarkably similar, and in terms then of
corroboration, there was corroboration in both directions.
Q. Have you read the report of Mrs. Janet Terry?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And I would ask you the same question with reference to that.
How did your approaches and your results compare?
A. Well, Mrs. Terry's approach was one which involved individuals
also. She had and does have wide acquaintance with many individuals who
are Quinault allottees, and in recent times has spent quite a bit of
time with them, and her understanding of the people in terms of this
kind of acquaintance is that which made it possible for her to come to
conclusions as to the issues and the problems that all of us were
concerned with.
As far as her conclusions go, the brief conclusions that she reached,
the generalized statements that she made are in no instance contradicted
by mine, and by and large they are(()) the same.
Q. On the question of these allottees adapting to white culture, how
would you describe the situation? Have they all acculturated far along,
or all not much at all, or are they scattered, or what? How do you
describe the situation?
A. There is a great range of acculturation to be found among the
allottees. There are some highly successful in acculturating, and
others distinctly unsuccessful in acculturation. This is a point that
I've made more than once in my report, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1.
Q. How does this fact or situation affect the conclusions in your
report?
A. It doesn't affect the conclusions in my report at all because as
I explained a few moments ago my concern was with the group, with the
ethnic aspects of the Quinault allottees, not with individuals.
Q. Did the tribes allotted on the Quinault Reservation have any
historical experience with the commercial exploitation of forests?
A. No, no experience at all with commercial exploitation of forests.
Their aboriginal utilization of forests and the utilization which
continued for many years following contacts with the whites involved the
use of timber for the building of(()) their houses, for the making of
canoes, and forest products for crafts. That was the limit of their
utilization.
Q. As of 680300 to what extent did the allottees know how to manage
timber?
A. Well, Mr. Hobbs, as of 680300 they had no knowledge of how to
manage timber in any broad or significant way.
Q. Might there have been individual exceptions to that?
A. Undoubtedly there were individual exceptions to that.
Q. To your knowledge what has the Government done to teach the
allottees how to manage their timbered allotments?
A. To my knowledge little or no attempt has been made in that
direction.
Q. As part of your report did you study the Government's land sale
policy for the period beginning about 550000?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. In issuing a fee patent to an allottee what did the Government
do, BIA, to see whether or not the allottee knew how to manage his
timber?
A. The Government made no inquiry into it, his ability as to how to
manage his timber.
Q. To what extent did the Government make any effort to avoid giving
allottees large sums of money which they might be likely to
squander?(())
A. The Government made such attempts, but they were inadequate and
ineffective in a great majority of the cases. The record is inadequate
for a definitive answer to that question, but many allottees did receive
large sums of money, despite the fact that they were not capable of
managing those sums, and these monies were given to them without
restrictions, with the result that the resisting of desires and
temptations on the part of the Indian to dissipate rapidly the money was
not impeded. I'm talking about the kind of money management and
protection of money that is considered sensible in contemporary culture.
For example, we don't feel that the dissipation of really large sums of
money in the purchase of alcohol, or the paying for alcoholic parties ts
sensible.
Q. In terms of acculturation how do the Makahs compare with the
Quinault allottees?
A. The Quinaults were more acculturated than the -- the Makahs were
more acculturated than the Quinault allottees.
Q. Are you familiar with the General Allotment Act?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you briefly describe its purposes?
A. The purposes of the General Allotment Act were to break up the
tribal aggregations of property and to divide among the Indians the land
in small plots for the purposes of(()) agriculture or grazing. The Act
so specifically declares.
The ultimate object was to make the Indians self sufficient, to make
them able to support themselves by means of the farming or the grazing
activities, which it was hoped and expected that they would conduct on
these allotments which were provided to them.
Q. Were these purposes applicable to the Quinault Reservation?
A. No, they were not applicable. The Quinault Reservation consisted
for the most part of timbered lands which were not susceptible to
agricultural or grazing activities. Such activities could be carried on
only in a very small percentage of the acreage of the Quinault
Reservation.
Q. Are you familiar with the Indian Reorganization Act of 340000?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. With respect to allotment, what was one of the primary purposes
of that Act?
A. Well, I would say the primary purposes of that Act was to stop
the allotment program. Indeed, that is what was provided.
Q. And what led Congress to stop the allotment program?
A. Presumably the experience of the intervening years,(()) which had
proved that the allotment program was an unsatisfactory one.
Q. How so?
A. Unsatisfactory both to the Indians and to the United States. It
did not achieve the objectives of the United States, and it led to a
breaking up of the land base of the Indians into these small plots, to
which I referred, and it provided for the alienation of the remaining
lands by sale to individuals, to whites, or purchase by the United
States.
Q. As a consequence of what you say the sale of land to others than
Indians, what happened? What did that condition produce?
A. Well, the condition that resulted was a checker board arrangement
of the formerly unbroken tribal lands, where the Indians retained a part
of their lands, but many of the intervening parts were sold to white
people.
Q. And sociologically what happened?
A. The tie with the United States was broken. The relationships
that formerly led to unity on the part of the Indian groups was broken.
Q. Once an Indian would sell his land what would he do?
A. Well, the Indian generally remained landless, and sometimes
poverty stricken in the area of his ancestors.(())
Q. And all of these you are saying were a part of the reasons for
the Indian Organization Act?
A. That is my feeling.
Q. Did there come a time later when the national policy changed
again, to be in favor of land going out of Indian ownership?
A. Yes. In 530000 there was action taken which was directly
contrary to the preceding policy, and this was House Concurrent
Resolution 108, in which it was specifically stated that it was to be
the policy of Congress, as rapidly as possible, to make the Indians
within the territorial limits of the United States subject to the same
laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as are
applicable to other citizens of the United States.
Q. Following House Concurrent Resolution 108 did there come a change
of policy in the BIA with respect to the fee patenting of land?
A. Yes. Beginning in 540000, but becoming implemented intensively
in 550000, there was the granting of a great number of allotments.
Q. Do you mean allotments or fee patents?
A. Fee patents. Excuse me.
Q. And was this true at the Quinault Reservation?(())
A. Yes, it was true.
Q. And how long did this period last?
A. Well, this period lasted until there were -- there came to be a
different temper on the part of legislative officials, and it was in the
late '60's that this developed to the point where, at least
administratively in 700000, a pronouncement was made by the President to
the effect that the policies which had been followed were unwise and
unfair, and should be discontinued, and that there should no longer be
an attempt on the part of the United States to break up and terminate
the Indian aggregations, the Indian tribes, the Indian groups.
MR. HOBBS: Let's take a ten-minute break.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
41 TO 91
MARSHALL, DAVID M ; US DEPT OF JUSTICE
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Dr. Ray, in the course of your recent testimony you referred to
the main village on the Quinault Reservation. What is that village?
A. Taholah.
Q. How many individuals does it take to convert individual behavior
into group behavior?
A. Whatever the number is that constitutes the ethnic group.(())
Q. Well, what number would you regard as constituting an ethnic
group?
A. The number ranges from a very small number to millions.
Q. And what would be very small?
A. Within my experience, the smallest such group that I have worked
with has been about 100.
Q. Now, does individual behavior merge with that of the group?
A. Individual behavior is basically determined in the social and
ethnic sense by the group. Individual behavior is modified by all of
the factors that are of concern to the psychologists and is modified by
all of the variations of mental and physical make-up of the individual,
so that we then have the full range that is encountered in any ethnic
group.
Q. Now, do all individuals in the group behave in the same manner?
A. No.
Q. In your testimony you referred to the lack of control, allegedly,
on the part of the BIA in respect to proceeds from fee patents. How
many fee patents were there?
A. Mr. Marshall, are you asking for over the whole period of the
granting of fee patents?
Q. What period were you referring to?(())
A. I would have to go back to my -- to the question and my answer,
but I will answer your question. In terms of the whole period, if you
wish, the -- about 35 percent of the whole.
Q. Thirty-five percent of the whole of what?
A. 3,000 plus.
Q. 3,000 plus what?
A. Fee patents -- 3,000 plus allotments.
Q. So you're testimony would then be that the BIA, in your opinion,
did not exercise sufficient control of the proceeds of fee patents in
well over how many of the 3,000?
A. A large number of them.
Q. Now you testified a great majority.
A. A large number of the ones that were granted.
Q. Your testimony was a great majority. Are you modifying your
testimony?
A. No. I think -- didn't I say "a large number"?
Q. No, you testified that the BIA control was inadequate and
ineffective in a great majority of cases.
A. But I meant just now, did I say "a large number"? If not, I will
now say that.
Q. Well, what is a large number?
A. Perhaps 75 percent of all cases.
Q. And all cases were 3,000?(())
A. No. I said 35 percent of 3,000.
Q. So 75 percent of the 35 percent?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you in your report identified any of those cases that are
among the 75 percent of the 35 percent?
A. Yes, I have given a good many quotations that relate to the
matter that we're discussing.
Q. How many cases have you investigated?
A. My investigations have been in the nature of the reading of the
documentary sources, the exhibits in this case. I have read all of the
JT --
Q. That is not what I asked you. You are not responding to the
question. How many cases have you investigated that reveal that the BIA
controls were inadequate and ineffective?
A. I didn't add up the number of the JT exhibits that indicate this,
but I can tell you that in the course of my inquiries I got information
to that effect from a score or more of individuals.
Q. And were these individuals informants, in the technical sense
among anthropologists?
A. Yes.
Q. And who were they?
A. The people that I talked to in the course of my field(())
research recently, that is to say, at the time that I made inquiries
with regard to the issues for the purposes of this case, and they were
people such as Horton Caponman and Harry Shale and Grandma Black. About
30 such or so.
Q. And are these 30 people all Plaintiffs in this case?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, 35 percent of the 3,000, and 75 percent of the 35 percent
would mean 787 cases; would it not?
A. I don't know. I didn't do the arithmetic.
Q. And did these half-a-dozen informants, as you call them, tell you
of 787 specific named cases?
A. No.
MR. HOBBS: I don't believe he testified a half-a-dozen informants.
I heard a different number.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. There never was any surplus lands disposed of from the Quinault
Indian Reservation, was there?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now with respect to page 3 of Appendix II of your report,
Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, you refer in the middle of the paragraph to
some main differences that you noted. Now, didn't you overlook among
your main differences a change in the distribution of population since
310000?(())
A. Mr. Marshall, I didn't understand the question.
Q. On the middle of page 3 of Appendix II you refer to certain main
differences that you discerned as arising since 310000. Now, didn't you
overlook listing among such main differences a change in the
distribution of population since 310000?
A. No. I was talking about cultural and economic patterns. That is
not a change in cultural and economic patterns. That's a change in the
locations of peoples.
Q. Are you saying that the Quinault allottees are in the same
locations today as in 310000?
A. Many of them are. There are a good many who have moved.
Q. How many are there in the same locations?
A. I don't know.
Q. How many have moved?
A. I don't knou.
Q. And didn't you also overlook among main differences, Dr. Ray, a
change in the nature of occupation since 310000?
A. I listed here the main differences and change in the occupations
was not a main difference that I noted.
Q. Now, one of the main differences you do recognize is that more
children are attending schools than was the case in(()) 310000. That's
correct; is it not?
A. It was an on-going process.
Q. But when did it begin?
A. It began as soon as schools were established. The number of
children attending schools increased as the years went by.
Q. And when were schools established?
A. It depends upon the definition of schools. There were teachers
before the turn of the century, but it was after the turn of the century
that what one might call schools existed.
Q. Well, in respect to 310000, the change since 310000 in regard to
more children attending schools, when did the first change after 310000
occur that resulted in more children attending school?
A. In 320000.
Q. And what was that?
A. An increase.
Q. An increase of what?
A. Of children attending school.
Q. And what was that due to?
A. It was due to the improved facilities, and to the encouragement
by their parents for the children to attend(()) school, and the
encouragement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the children to attend
school.
Q. And what happened in 320000 that precipitated that change from
310000?
A. It was one year after 310000, and then 330000 would have been
more than 320000, although I have made no statistical inquiry so that I
must assume that there were fluctuations, and that it was not a straight
line curve.
Q. And why did you choose the year 310000?
A. Because you asked me about 310000.
Q. Why did you place 310000 midway on page 3 of your Appendix II?
A. Because that is when I started my research with the Quinault
allottees.
Q. And your research was over in 320000?
A. No, my research was over in 760000.
Q. Your research on the reservation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was over when?
A. In 760000.
Q. And have you been on the reservation each year since 310000?
A. No, just occasionally.(())
Q. What changes have there been in the nature of the schools since
310000?
A. Improvement.
Q. What sort of improvement?
A. Improvement in buildings, improvement in facilities, but when I
say "improvement," I refer only to very general observations and
readings, including the reading of Dr. Lane's report, and in this
program of study for purposes of the present litigation. It was Dr.
Lane who assumed the responsibility for inquiring into schools. I have
written very little about schools in my report, and I can turn to those
pages, if you wish, and indicate what I mean by my having made only a
few general remarks.
Q. Isn't the matter of more Indian children attending school also
characteristic of white American society since 310000?
A. I don't understand your question, Mr. Marshal. Do you mean have
not more white children attended school?
Q. Attended school generally.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what research have you published dealing with contemporary
American society aside from the Indians?
A. None.(())
Q. All right.
A. That is not quite true. If you mean by contemporary the white
society of the last few decades, I've published a few articles in
connection with the Second World War and the cultural aspects, but I
don't consider that pertinent here.
Q. How many allottees are there at present?
A. Well, the number is not known. There may be many thousands.
There are some 1,400 associated with the Quinault Allottees Association.
Q. Actually are there not over 1,400 who are Plaintiffs in this
litigation?
A. The figure has never been of concern to me as to a specific
number, but I believe it's 1,443, or 1,434. Something of that kind.
Q. Now, one of the Quinault Allottees Association newsletters
estimated that the number of allottees might possibly be as high as
12,000. Would you quarrel with that, Dr. Ray?
A. I have no way of knowing.
Q. Now, where do these thousands of allottees live?
A. They live in various parts of the world, primarily in the
Northwest, and some in more distant parts of the United States, and some
in Canada. The majority of them live within the States of Washington,
Oregon, California, and the province(()) of British Columbia.
Q. How many live in Washington, Oregon, California and British
Columbia?
A. I don't know.
Q. How many live on the Quinault Reservation?
A. About one-fourth of the total. I don't know the number.
Q. How many are on the Quinault tribal rolls?
A. I have that figure in my report, and it doesn't come readily to
mind. I would prefer to look it up, if you would like to have me do so.
Q. Pages 5 and 6 of Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1.
A. My figure there is 1,300 persons.
Q. Now, how many of the 1,300 on the tribal roll are today owners of
an allotment or partial interest of an allotment?
A. Most all of the older people. There are a good many younger
people who have not yet received allotments, or fractional portions,
because they haven't inherited.
Q. Do you know the number?
A. No. I have not dealt with numbers. This is associated with my
statement of earlier, that individuals and numbers have not been a part
of my assignment, or my procedure in this case.
Q. How many of the allottees live in Seattle?(())
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know how many live outside of -- in Oregon, California and
British Columbia?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Now, on page 41-42 you refer to a South Carolina allottee. Have
you had any experience with allottees in South Carolina?
A. No.
Q. Have you had any experience with allottees anywhere else?
A. Only in the States of Washington and California -- excuse me --
Washington and Oregon.
MR. HOBBS: I'm sorry. Do you mean Quinault allottees, or allottees
of any tribe?
MR. MARSHALL: I'm using allottees in the sense in which is used
throughout his report, which is the allottees of the Quinault Indian
Reservation.
MR. HOBBS: Thank you.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. And most of those allottees that you have some experience with in
Washington and Oregon have been on the Quinault Indian Reservation;
have they not?
A. More than half -- no, I can't say that. For the(()) moment I was
forgetting the Cowlitz and Chinook and so on. Less than half.
Q. How many Quinault allottees are on the Cowlitz Reservation?
A. There is no Cowlitz Reservation.
Q. How many of them are considered portions of the Cowlitz Tribe, or
group, or band?
A. Persons who are on the Quinault Reservation or who own allotments
on the Quinault Reservation?
Q. And how many are --
A. Excuse me. Would you just rephrase the question, please?
Q. Well, you're answering the questions.
A. No, that was intended to be a question, Mr. Marshall.
Q. You're not asking the questions; you're answering them, sir.
MR. HOBBS: He has asked that you rephrase your question. If you
could do so, perhaps he could answer your question.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. How many of the Cowlitz are among the Quinault allottees?
A. I don't know.(())
Q. Now, the word "Quinault" does not necessarily mean that a
Quinault allottee has any Quinault blood, does it?
A. The word "Quinault," Mr. Marshall, has been used in many ways.
My use of it is clearly set forth in my report, Plaintiff's Exhibit
VR-1, and I have stated there that I will use the word "Quinault
allottee" to refer to any individuals who own allotments on the Quinault
Reservation. As to the aboriginal Quinault Tribe, on page 5 of that
report I say, "The word 'Quinault' is derived from the name of the
aboriginal tribe," and the next significant -- the next pertinent
statement I make is referenced to these Indians for aboriginal and
immediate post aboriginal times will be made by using the term
"aboriginal Quinault Tribe," or an equivalent, and then the immediately
following sentence I say, "The present Quinault Tribe, the simple term,
'Quinault Tribe' will be employed for designating the present day tribe.
This aggregation consists of those persons whose names appear on the
tribal roll."
Perhaps I should continue. "These are partly descendants of the
aboriginal Quinault Tribe, and partly persons of other tribal
connections, mainly, Quileute, Chehalis, Chinook, and Cowlitz."
Q. And there could be Quileute, Chehalis, Cowlitz among the
allottees who have no Quinault blood?(())
A. Yes. Excuse me, Quinault ancestry. I cannot utilize the term
"Quinault blood."
Q. Then one could have Quinault ancestry without being related by
blood to a Quinault?
A. Well, there is no such thing as relationship by blood in
anthropological terms or biological terms. It could have Quinault
ancestry without being related by lineage, yes.
Q. And by adoption?
A. Yes.
Q. How many allottees have you personally known or interviewed?
A. I would have to estimate the figure. Perhaps 60.
Q. And when did you interview the 60?
A. Over the period of 310000 to 760000.
Q. And how of the 60 are still alive?
A. I have made no attempt to ascertain that, but I would say less
than half.
Q. Have you worked with any allottees in Oakville, Washington?
A. Yes. I worked with one allottee there, Helen Mitchell.
Q. And is she -- she is a Chehalis resident and Quinault; isn't
that true?
A. Yes, but she is a Quinault allottee.(())
Q. Yes. Now, have you worked with any Quinault allottees in La
Push?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And how many did you work with there?
A. Three or four.
Q. And what was their tribal affiliation?
A. Quileute.
Q. Have you worked with any Quileute other than the three or four at
La Push?
A. Yes, some on the Quinault Reservation.
Q. Have you worked with any Hoh?
A. Not to my recollection. It may have been that in the early days
I did so, but with something like -- well, with hundreds of names on my
informant list, it's a little hard to remember everyone.
Q. Have you worked with any Hoh who are Quinault allottees?
A. Well, Mr. Marshall, if I can't remember whether I worked with any
Hoh, then I wouldn't, of course, remember if I've worked with any Hoh
who are Quinault allottees.
Q. Have you worked with any allottees outside the Quinault
Reservation, and outside of the three or four that you mentioned, or the
one at Oakville, which is Helen Mitchell, and the three or four that you
mentioned at La Push?(())
A. Yes, a number of them in the Cowlitz country, in the Chinook
country, and at various residences in Oregon and other parts of
Washington.
Q. And these are among the 60 that you referred to a while back?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you worked with any allottees in Seattle?
A. No.
Q. In Portland, Oregon?
A. No.
Q. Now, in working with these 60 Quinault allottees, what was the
nature of your contacts with them?
A. Ethnological research.
Q. And what type of ethnological research?
A. General ethnological research, plus specific inquiry as to the
issues in this case during the recent research that I did specifically
for purposes of this case.
Q. And since those 60 go back to 310000, you're not implying then
that -- for the purposes of this case -- you worked with 60?
A. No.
Q. How many would you say you worked with for purposes of this
litigation?(())
A. I wouldn't keep a count, but I would say about 30.
Q. Do you know whether those 30 are Plaintiffs in this case?
A. I know that most of them were, but I cannot say that all 30 were
Plaintiffs.
Q. Do you recall which, if any, of these allottees you worked with
in respect to the 540000-640000 decade?
A. Well, all of the 30 I worked with with respect to that decade.
Q. Now, did you work with any of the 60 during the decade of
540000-640000?
A. Only on general ethnological questions of inquiry.
Q. Do you know what proportion of the Quinault tribe are allottees?
A. I can't give you a percentage, but a large proportion of the
middle and older aged persons are allottees.
Q. Do you know what proportion of the Hoh are allottees?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what proportion of the Chehalis are allottees?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what proportion of the Chinook are allottees?(())
Q. Do you know what proportion of the Quileute are allottees?
A. No.
Q. Where do the Quileute live?
A. Quileute?
Q. Yes, Quileute.
A. Excuse me. I wasn't correcting your pronunciation. I was just
making sure that --
Q. I don't pretend it's perfect.
A. The Quileute live partly in their aboriginal territory with a
village at La Push, and partly on the Quinault Indian Reservation, and
partly in other locations.
Q. And where do the Chinook live?
A. They live partly in their aboriginal territory with
concentrations around Bay Center, Washington, partly in other parts of
their aboriginal territory, partly on the Quinault Reservation, and
partly in other places.
Q. And where do the Chehalis live?
A. My answer would be the same.
Q. The Chehalis and Chinook then occupy jointly the same general --
A. No. "By the same" I mean the Chehalis live partly in their
aboriginal territory, partly on the Quinault Reservation,(()) and partly
in other places.
Q. Are most of them centered around Oakville, Washington?
A. I think so.
Q. And is Oakville within the more or less focal center of the
aboriginal territory of the Chehalis?
A. It's within the aboriginal territory.
Q. And are you defining aboriginal territory as circumscribed by the
Indian Claims Commission?
A. I am not defining contrary to the manner in which it was
described. I think that for my answer it would be the same in any
general description of the territory of the people.
Q. And would the same thing apply as to the Chinook, their
aboriginal territory?
A. I was not involved in the Chinook Indian Claims litigation, but
-- no, I can't answer it because I don't know precisely what the Indian
Claims Commission found in that respect.
Q. Now, what are the differences between the Quinault and the
Chinook?
A. The differences. The cultural differences, the linguistic
differences? I'm just asking you to expand the question, if you would
kindly do so.
Q. Well, in what respect would a Quinault allottee, whose(())
lineage is that of the Quinault Tribe, differ from a Chinook from a
Quinault allottee whose lineage is that of the Chinook Tribe?
A. Thank you. The one would differ from the other in that the
Quinault aboriginal culture was of a sub-type, which characterized the
Quinault particularly, and did not extend at all to the Chinook. The
Chinook had a way of life which was quite distinct from the Quinault
sub-culturally, although in the traits that define Northwest Coast
Indian culture, they were one. The Quinault spoke a language which was
totally incomprehensible to the Chinook, and vice versa, of course, the
two languages belonging to an entirely different linguistic stocks.
Those would be the principal differences.
Q. And what would be the difference in respect of a Quinault
allottee of Quinault lineage as distinguished from a Quinault allottee
with Chehalis lineage?
A. The Quinault and the Chehalis uere closer in cultural traits.
Their sub-cultural identity was closer, and their languages were more
similar.
Q. And what would be the difference between a Quinault allottee of
Quinault lineage and a Quinault allottee of Quileute lineage?
A. The Quileute and the Quinault shared a great many(()) features of
culture, although there were minor significant differences, and the
languages were different.
Q. What specific traits would indicate a distinction between the
Quileute and the Quinault?
A. The Quileute were more closely linked with the classical
Northwest culture, which found its highest point of development to the
North in the Canadian Coastal area, and this is a part of the general
pattern in the area where one can say the same thing about the Quileute
and the Makah, the Makah, are even more closely linked to the classical
culture of the Northwest Coast than are the Quileute.
Q. Now, with respect to the Hoh, what specific traits would indicate
the difference between a Quinault of Quinault lineage and a Quinault of
Hoh lineage?
A. Well, I've already talked about the Quileute. That includes the
Hoh. The Hoh and the Quileute would be similar.
Q. What difference, if any, would there be, for example, as between
the Quinault lineage and the Quinault allottee of Chehalis lineage with
respect to family stratification?
A. Well, there wouldn't be any difference in stratification because
that wasn't really an aspect of family organization, in terms of the
coherence of the family and the extended family that characterized the
social organization of all of(()) these people. The Chehalis were less
extreme in this respect, and in the upper reaches of their country they
were inland and in contact with peoples whose ways of life did not
include this concept of the extended family and lineages that occurred
on the Northwest Coast.
Q. And how about family organization? What distinction would there
be between the allottee of Quinault lineage and an allottee of Chehalis
lineage?
A. Well, that is the point that I was just making, is that the
difference in family organization, is precisely what I said in my
preceding answer.
Q. Did the Quinault allottee of Quinault lineage have the same
values as the Quinault allottee of Quileute lineage?
A. No. No two tribes have exactly the same values. They were quite
similar in cultural values and in personal values.
Q. And that would apply generally, would it not, to the different
tribes on the Olympic Peninsula?
A. Yes, generally.
Q. How about the differences between a Quinault allottee of Quinault
lineage and a Quinault allottee of Humptulip lineage?
A. The Humptulips, there is so little known that it(()) would be
difficult -- it would not be possible to answer that question. I do not
know.
MR. HOBBS: David, if you are going into a new line, perhaps this
would be a good time to take a lunch break.
MR. MARSHALL: All right.
MR. HOBBS: Okay.
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter were
recessed for lunch at 12:30 p.m.)(())
(1:55 p.m.)
MR. HOBBS: Okay. We are ready.
BY MR. MARSHALL
Q. Dr. Ray, there are Quinault allottees who are not enrolled
members of any tribe, are there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know how many there are of those?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know where they live?
A. I know they live in various parts of the Northwest and beyond.
Q. Now, in your report, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, in the middle of
page 16, you refer to the bulk of aboriginal traits which are
antithetical to those of the whites. Now, what are those traits that
you consider as antithetical?
A. In the aboriginal culture of these several tribes, whose members
make up the Quinault allottees, there was a notion that wealth was of
primary importance for purposes of gaining social prestige at the
expense of one's neighbors. The utilization of wealth was primarily in
two forms; one making presents not to one's friends, but to one's -- I
don't want to enemies, but those that one way trying to pass beyond,
pass(()) beyond, pass above on the social scale. Equally effective and
extensively practiced was the destroying of property, which effected the
same results in advancing one's social status.
Another factor was the family organization, which consisted of an
extended family with ties that were very close, and I might compare it
with the ties within the nuclear family amongst ourselves. The
relatives that constituted the bulk of this extended family were in a
position with regard to the head of the family that put that head of the
family in authority over them, and resulted in their looking to him as a
leader.
Next I will mention the lack of political organization, as we
understand it. The power being in the extended family and in the
lineage, with -- rather than in the community, and by "power" I mean the
control over the determination of the use of the economic sources, as
well as the power over the social aspects of the culture. The economy,
by virtue of the physical environment, and the way in which these
Indians had developed the exploitation of that environment, was one
which provided them with an ever ready supply of food stuffs and they
did not think of working today so as to have something to protect their
economic welfare tomorrow.
These are some of the antithetical cultural characteristics.(())
Q. Now, what time periods are you talking about --
A. I'm talking about --
Q. -- in respect to these antithetical traits.
A. Excuse me. Pardon me. I didn't mean to interrupt.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm talking about the aboriginal time period, which with almost
no change in these values continued until around 1880, and I'm also
talking about a period following that during which these values and
concepts were retained to a sufficient degree to markedly influence
behavior and decisions, up to the up to 300000, and beyond to the mid
century, although the period of the early 1930's probably represented a
bit of the turning point.
Q. Now, when did the giving of presents as a type of social climbing
cease?
A. It has not yet ceased.
Q. Now, isn't that a characteristic too of many segments of American
society?
A. No. Throughout the world presents are given, and they are
usually given for reasons that are pretty well defined within the ethnic
system of values. The kind of gift giving that characterizes white
society at this Christimas season, for example, is quite unknown to the
Indians who were the Quinault(()) allottees, and is still today not the
pattern. The pattern of giving to friends today is one of passing out
large sums of money when such sums of money are at hand, far larger sums
than we would think of, and also the putting on of parties which involve
considerable periods of excess alcoholic consumption.
Q. And I gather that it is prompted more by an incentive to improve
one's social status than out of a motive of generosity?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you used the phrase "these Indians," you were referring
to aboriginal Indians; is that correct?
A. I'm referring to the Quinault allottees.
Q. Regardless of where they live?
A. Yes.
Q. And regardless of their aboriginal lineage?
A. Regardless of their aboriginal lineage, and regardless of where
they live as a pattern, as an ethnic pattern, but I have already said
that there are individuals who are almost completely or completely
acculturated.
Q. Now, how would you characterize the non-Indian among whom these
allottees lived and carried on dealings in respect to ethnic -- you have
indicated that the Quinault allottees, by reason of aboriginal lineage,
have these traits which were(()) antithetical and held them in common.
Now, in respect to cultural traits among the non-Indians in the society
in which these Quinault allottees made their living, and so on.
A. Typical white Protestant Anglo-Saxon cultural patterns of rural
peoples of the West.
Q. Now, were there not a great variety of different types of the
immigrants coming into the Pacific Northwest over the years?
A. I'm able to answer your question because of a general knowledge
of the fact that there were, but I also have an equally general
knowledge of the melting point effect that has taken place, my having
lived in that part of the world for 60 years.
Q. Well, were there not among the immigrants those of Spanish
lineage, those of French-Canadian, Scandinavian, English, Russian,
Polish, and so on?
A. Some of each.
Q. And did not those different ethnic groups retain certain ethnic
characteristics by reason of their national derivation?
A. They retained some ethnic characteristics, but relatively few,
and nothing to compare with the retention that characterized the Indians
who are the Quinault allottees.(())
Q. And they still retain, do they not, the non-Indians, a variety of
cultural traits?
A. No, they don't retain a variety of cultural traits, if you are
talking about the sort of cluster that I have reference to throughout my
report. I am talking about the totality of culture. Individual traits,
yes, but I am not making statements with regard to individual traits
except to point out that there is a variety.
Q. Now, to the extent that there has been some diminution in the
variances among non-Indians who have come into the Pacific Northwest
from different countries, hasn't that diminution in part been accounted
for by intermarriage?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, what constitutes in your estimation the white pattern of
life?
A. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and I mention Anglo-Saxon because
that's the dominant antecedent cultural pattern.
Q. And you say that's the predominant pattern in the Pacific
Northwest?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what do you mean by "retained cultural values" of the
Indians?
A. I mean that they have not been lost, that they still(())
characterize the behavior of the people, and motivate the actions of the
people.
Q. And do you apply that general statement to the allottees
generally, regardless of where they live?
A. With respect to the ethnic characteristics, with respect to the
group, yes. With respect to any selected individual, not necessarily.
Q. Now, what, specifically, are these values that have been
retained?
A. They are the same values that I enumerated a few moments ago that
distinguish the allottees, Quinault allottees from the whites.
Q. And you refer to the Indians being put to a great disadvantage in
dealing with bureaucracy in the white man's business world. In using
the term "Indians," are you including Quinault allottees?
A. I'm speaking specifically of Quinault allottees.
Q. And again, regardless of where they live?
A. I have not made any statements, and do not make any statements
with regard to all, 100 percent of the persons that constitute the
Quinault allottees. I speak of the Quinault allottees as a group.
Q. Now, compared to whom were they put a great(()) disadvantage?
A. Compared to the whites.
Q. Now, this is compared to people such as you and me?
A. Compared to people such as you and me, Mr. Marshall, and to the
people with whom they were surrounded in the areas where they lived,
particularly the Northwest, but also -- no, I'll say particularly in the
Northwest.
Q. Well, doesn't the great growth in consumer groups and consumer
protection agencies show that all Americans are also at a disadvantage
in dealing with business groups?
A. That's not a question that I can answer within my competency.
Q. Now, in the second paragraph on page 20 you use the phrase "in
about 30 years." Now, what period is within the scope of your use of
"about 30 years"?
A. The mid 1900's would be 500000, or thereabouts, 200000 is 30
years before that. Those are the 30 years I have reference to.
Q. Now, what do you mean by the "lack of social acculturation"?
A. I'm simply distinguishing social acculturation from acculturation
and field of material culture, and all of the items that I listed for
you earlier as characteristic of the(()) Quinault allottees,
aboriginally and/or -- and to a considerable extent subsequently, as
contrasted to the whites, were social, whereas such a thing as the house
in which one lives is an aspect of material culture.
Q. What values are implicit in social acculturation, as
distinguished from material acculturation?
A. There are practically no values associated with material culture.
Material culture results from the values of the group to the extent
that circumstances, both within and beyond their control, make it
possible to achieve those values. For example, the economic climate may
make it possible for a person to have only a shack to live in, or to
have a very fine house to live in.
Q. And what are the values that particularly characterize social
acculturation?
A. All of the values.
Q. Well, how do you define a value?
A. The determinance of human behavior in terms of cultural and
individual concepts of worth.
Q. Well then, do you mean by lack of social acculturation that the
Quinault allottees have no sense of cultural worth?
A. No, just the opposite. They have a deep sense of cultural worth,
but it is a sense of cultural worth that is(()) derived from their
wholly contrasting ethnic background from that of the whites.
Q. Now, who are the contemporary whites among whom the notion of
saving for a rainy day is prevalent?
A. As an ethnic group, all of the contemporary whites.
Q. All over the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when an aboriginal potlatch was given, doesn't that
represent saving up for years ahead of time --
A. It did when -- am I interrupting?
Q -- and so as a means of repaying loans to any social obligations?
A. No, definitely not. Well, it's a two-pronged question. To the
first part, yes, saving up. To the second part, definitely no. Saving
up so that one can have the goods, so as to shame or to put down one's
neighbor. Secondly, the second part, so as to repay one's obligations?
No. Quite the contrary. So as to do just the opposite. So as to go
beyond any obligation which had been created at an earlier time by one's
opponent in the process of thus showing or destroying wealth. To go
beyond that and to create for the opponent a position wherein he was put
to shame, or was put in a position of having in turn to save up for
years so as to try to outdo at(()) some future time, this person who had
temporarily succeeded.
Q. Well then, in a sense, this business of out doing is sort of like
keeping up with the Joneses; is it not?
A. No. Keeping up with the Joneses is to me rather self defining.
If Mr. Jones was next door to me, I keep up with him if I have as good a
house as he does. It certainly does not include my going over to Mr.
Jones' house and saying, "Here. I am giving you a gift that is far
greater than anyone you could give me, and I dare you to exceed that
gift at any future return."
Q. And this is -- the potlatch is a species, I believe you
indicated, of destroying property?
A. That is one of the ways in which this social achievement may be
sought. One may take a valuable canoe and go out and chop it to pieces,
or sink it, or may take a slave and kill that slave.
Q. Now, how long has it been since they have used potlatch as a
means of destroying property?
A. The potlatch in that form continued into the present century, the
early years of the present century.
Q. And how about the destruction of the canoe as a means of, I
presume, of showing you were sufficiently economically viable to destroy
your property like that, and continue to
76 ** exist and subsist? How long did that last?
A. That is what I had reference to when you said how long did it
persist, that kind of thing.
Q. And the potlatch persisted too until the early 1900's?
A. That was potlatch.
Q. Oh, their destroying of a canoe is part of a potlatch?
A. Yes, indeed. It would never be done except in a potlatch.
Q. Oh, I see. And the killing of a slave would be done as a part of
a potlatch?
A. Yes, except it might also be done when the owner died.
Q. And how long has it been since they had slaves?
A. About 200000.
Q. And where were the slaves from that existed as late as 200000?
A. I don't know the birth places of the slaves that Dr. Olson report
as of that time, but for the earlier times, you didn't ask me that.
Q. Do you know when they last killed a slave?
A. No.
Q. Is Olson the source on which you rely in respect to the potlatch
as a means of destroying property?(())
A. I relied on my own research far more than Olson, but I relied on
Olson also, and this was necessary because he was dealing primarily with
the Quinault aboriginal peoples, and I was dealing in my research on
this subject, primarily with the Chinook.
Q. On page 77 of your report, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, you indicate
mid way in the first paragraph that most of their white neighbors would
be more capable of handling large sums of money than most of the
Quinault allottees. Now, what evidence have you to show that most
whites would be more capable of handling large transactions and large
sums of money than most Quinault allottees?
A. Many, many years of experience with both groups of people.
Q. Have you done any anthropological work or ethnohistorical work
among non-Indians as such on that phase?
A. No. I have been a participant observer.
Q. Now, you refer also to numerous instances in which the allottees
have been given patents in fee when the deficiencies of such allottees
made the receipt of patents in fee unjustified. Now, who were those?
A. Those were many allottees whose deficiencies were reported in
governmental communications, letters by the Bureau(()) of Indian
Affairs, and letters by the allottees themselves, and also by relatives
and friends of the allottees, and to a considerable extent by those
persons whose names the allottees had given to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs as references from whom recommendations might be sought as to
the ability of the allottee to handle large sums of money.
Q. How many were there who actually received fee patents who have
such deficiencies?
A. It is my opinion -- it is my considered anthropological opinion,
based upon all of the research I have done, and upon the documents, the
numerous documents that I have examined that a large percentage of the
people of the allottees who received large sums of money were not
capable of making what we would consider to be wise and sensible use of
that money. The percentage, if you ask me for that, I would suggest
half or more of the allottees, the allottees who received these monies.
Q. Have you a list of those that constitute that 50 percent or more?
A. No, I don't have a list of names. I do not use names. That, as
I explained, is not my procedure. I'm proceeding as an ethnologist;
however, I have looked at all of the exhibits which have been entered,
or are to be offered as exhibits in this case, and the total number of
examples there(()) is considerable.
Q. Now, do you have the dates when these transactions occurred?
A. These transactions occurred over the whole period of the granting
of fee patents and the supervised sales, and the sale of timber through
what the Bureau called an advertised sale, and which the Bureau
supervised.
Q. In referring to the whole period, when do you envision that
period as beginning?
A. The first allotments -- the first fee patents were granted, and
the first sales of timber made around 200000, and this continued with a
great deal of variation in the number that were granted, and the number
of sales that were made, right up to the end of the period which I have
surveyed, which is about 640000.
Q. And do you have a list of where these allotments were that the
fee patents were granted on?
A. I have no lists of anything of that sort. It is totally outside
the methodology of my investigation.
Q. Now, would you refer to page 96 of your report, Plaintiff's
Exhibit VR-1, please?
A. Yes.
Q. In the last sentence you indicate that the BIA was(()) failing
its fiduciary duty to protect the Indians in their social and economic
welfare. Now, how do you define the term "fiduciary duty," as you use
it in that sense?
A. Fiduciary I use in the ordinary English language sense, to mean
its responsibilities and obligations.
Q. And what do you consider the social welfare that the BIA should
have protected?
A. I consider that the United States should have taken into account
the fact that the Quinault allottees were living in a comtemporary
society where the systems of business and negotiations involving money
is that of the white man's world, and I consider that it was the
responsibility of the United States, through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, to protect the social and economic welfare of the Quinault
allottees so as to see to it that they were not put in an inferior
position because they did not proceed as did the whites to protect
themselves in these regards.
Q. Well, how do you distinguish social welfare from economic
welfare?
A. In the larger sense economic welfare is a part of social welfare,
but I wanted to call attention to the money aspect by using the word
"economic," and to the relationship between the Quinault allottees and
their white neighbors, and(()) between the Quinault allottees and the
officials of the United States Government on the other hand.
MR. HOBBS: David, when you get to the end of that line of
questioning, can we take a five-minute break?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes.
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Now, turning to page 110, about mid way on the page, coming back
again to this fee patent matter, you stated that "Possession of fee
patent gives the owner the right, even to allowing himself to be
defrauded in its handling or sale."
Now, will you identify the transactions in which the owner of the fee
patent allowed himself to be defrauded?
A. I would like to read the sentence. "Possession of a fee patent
gives the owner the right to do whatever he wishes with his property,
even to allowing himself to be defrauded in its handling or sale."
I did not say that the owner did, indeed, allow himself to be
defrauded, but I will say it now, and I have said it in many other parts
of my report, and there are government reports that say Indians upon
receiving fee patents have sold their holdings, sold their timber, or
their timber and their lands for a small fraction of the value of the
resource, that the BIA would have been able to get considerably more
money,(()) that the Indian has sold at an unreasonably low figure
because he is drunk, and so on.
Q. And do you have a list of those?
A. I do not have a list, but from place to place I have included a
number of the letters and documents that so state, and I also refer to
the JT exhibits, which are to be offered as a part of this case, which
contain a great many such document, and these particular instances are
pointed out by her particularly because that was one of the parts of the
investigation for purposes of this litigation, that she assumed.
Q. And to that extent then you relied on Janet Terry; is that
correct?
A. On Janet Terry's exhibits, and on the DT series also, which
contains numerous such examples, and also on my own exhibits, which are
referred to at each point in this report where they are quoted, and also
the conclusions reached by Janet Terry I find to be consistent on the
basis of her use of those documents with my conclusions that I have
reached by a different technique of inquiry and research.
MR. MARSHALL: I think this would be a good time to take a recess.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. HOBBS: Okay, David; any time.(())
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Dr. Ray, just before the recess we were considering the Terry
report. Did you edit the Terry report?
A. No, I had nothing to do with the Terry report.
Q. You didn't make any suggestions in respect to the contents?
A. No, none whatsoever. We had no meetings, and I wrote nothing.
Q. Did you edit the Lane report?
A. No, not at all.
Q. On page 158 of your report, Plaintiff's Exhibit VR-1, you refer
to the Sally Williams case. Were you aware that she refused to sign a
power of attorney?
A. I used the name Sally Williams because it appeared in the letter.
I avoided the use of any informants -- I don't mean informants -- any
person's name I could, and I did not give any attention to any personal
records, so I'm not aware.
Q. You wouldn't be aware of what timber sale the case pertained?
A. No.
Q. Please turn to page 162, Item 5, near the foot of the page. Did
the Bureau of Indian Affairs try to prevent the allottees from learning
about their lands and their timber?(())
A. No.
Q. Now, wasn't the purpose of a power of attorney in the use of
those a type of participation in management?
A. No, in my opinion it was not.
Q. Now, on page 153, the first -- the second line of the second
paragraph, you refer to aboriginal culture of the Quinault allottees.
Do you imply that there were Quinault allottees before the whites came
into the Pacific Northwest?
A. (Pause.) To the extent that I understand your question, Mr.
Marshall, No.
Q. Well, how do you define aboriginal culture?
A. Prior to the coming of whites. No, excuse me. That is not the
definition for aboriginal culture. The definition of aboriginal culture
is that which was native to, or that which was the pattern of life of
the people unaffected by outside influences. Now, it's true that we use
a kind of shorthand sometimes and say before the coming of the whites,
but that is not the proper criterion.
Q. And do you then mean to imply that by the time the Quinault
Reservation was allotted and there were Quinault allottees, that the
aboriginal culture of the Quinaults still remained unaffected?
A. No. I have stated on at least two occasions in the(()) report
that there was very little change in the Quinault allottee culture prior
to 1880, but that at that time there began a slow series of changes that
continued up to the present day.
Q. Now, four or five lines down below that you refer at the end of a
line to most cultures.
A. On page 153?
Q. Yes. It's the sentence begins, "This feeling derived from the
aboriginal culture." It's the fourth sentence in the second paragraph.
A. "This feeling derived from the aboriginal culture and is not to
be confused with the kind of pride that conditions the behavior of men
and women in most cultures."
Q. Now, what cultures do you have in mind in using the term "most
cultures"?
A. Most cultures of the world. In the course of my years of working
in the field of anthropology, my teaching and research, I have given
attention to cultures of various other parts of the world, and this
statement is intended to apply generally to human beings.
Q. Now, how does the sense of pride that you attribute to Quinault
allottees differentiate from the sense of pride of the inhabitants of
the world generally?(())
A. A far deeper sense of pride than is found in most cultures. A
far greater sense of shame when pride is involved and brought into
question, and a far stronger pattern of behavior to maintain the
integrity of that pride. A matter of degree not of kind, but a
difference of kind in the way in which the pride was expressed and
supported.
Q. Now, turning to page 140 of your report, near the foot of the
page, you refer to medical services provided by BIA physicians. This
service was free to the Quinault allottees; was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in using the term "BIA physicians," do you also include the
Public Health Service physicians of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare who were assigned to furnish medical services to the
Quinault allottees?
A. (Pause.) I do not so state here, but I would extend it to include
those now, because the point being made is that the allottees seldom
consulted doctors on the question of competency.
Q. Now, when was alcohol introduced to the Quinault allottees, or to
the Indians from whom their lineage derived?
A. At least as early as 1805.
Q. Now, how does one measure the degree of acculturation?(())
A. One doesn't measure the degree of acculturation in numerical
terms. Only general quantative evaluations are made. I can't recall in
many years of reading since this concept of acculturation became a
prominent aspect of the anthropological discipline. Back in about
300000 I cannot recall anyone who spoke in terms of percentages, except
for purposes of illustration.
Q. How did you measure it in preparing your report, if you did?
A. In terms of evaluation.
Q. And what do you mean by "evaluation"?
A. A great deal of acculturation, very little acculturation, more
acculturation than the other group with which comparison was being made,
a beginning at acculturation, full fledged acculturation.
Q. Well then, in terms of more and less, how then can one avoid
quantative evaluation?
A. All of these terms are quantative in an evaluative sense, but not
in a numerical sense. That was all that I was saying, is that in terms
of numbers of percentages it would be unscientific, and to my mind, in
my opinion, totally indefensible to use a percentage figure.
Q. Now, what ways other than alcohol do you consider the(()) Indians
or allottees as having dissipated their money?
A. The making of purchases of very expensive items which they did
not need. For example, an automobile, which in many instances was lost
within a few months because payments were not kept up, or because an
accident sometimes minor occurred, and the automobile was abandoned or
turned in for another one. In terms of buying goods, such as,
refrigerators and television sets that were simply duplicates of what
were already possessed. In terms of the kind of expenditures of money
on clothing, which led in some instances to as much as $1,000 to $2,000
on the part of a person in a month's time, or a few month's time. I
have reference to that sort of thing.
Q. And I gather that that's the sort of thing that you feel the BIA
should have exercised control to prevent happening.
A. I think that the BIA should have exercised whatever control and
provided whatever kind of training they could have devised in order to
avoid this sort of thing happening. They did show that they had the
same notion that I do, at least, in general, in the sporatic efforts to
control the spending of money by programming the proceeds that were
received. Also, in the writing of letters to persons who seemed to be
spending money in a manner considered by the Bureau official as unwise
but I have also stated, or will now state that the letters are(()) not
effective because of the cultural gap, and the failure on the part of
the BIA official to know, through sociological or anthropological study
or analysis, what it is that would have been effective under the
circumstances.
Q. And what period are you referring to when you say that the
letters were ineffective because the BIA allegedly did not have the
upper sociological or anthropological expertise to --
A. I'm referring to the last several decades, and right on up to
640000, because the efforts at sociological control, in my opinion, were
not well advised, and not very effective, despite the perfectly good
intentions that were present. There is no question about that.
Q. Dr. Ray, do you know of a definite word that defines
"Contemporary white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture." which you indicated
was dominant in the Pacific Northwest?
A. No, I don't. There may be -- well, I've answered your question.
Q. Yes, sir.
What percentage of the total population in the State of Washington is
Catholic; do you know?
A. A small percentage.
Q. What percentage of the total population in the State(()) of
Washington is Jewish; do you know?
A. A small percentage.
Q. Do you know what percentage of the total population of the
Pacific Northwest is Catholic?
A. A smaller percentage than Protestant.
Q. Do you know what percentage of the total population in the
Pacific Northwest is Jewish?
A. Much smaller than the Protestant. In full response to your
question, I ought to say these are answers given on the basis of long
residence and acquaintance and not on the basis of specific
anthropological or statistical inquiry.
Q. Does the aboriginal culture of the Pacific Northwest Indians
involve the use of drugs, as was characteristic of some Indian tribes in
the United States?
A. No.
MR. MARSHALL: I think that is all we have at present.
MR. HOBBS: Well, we would then propose to handle recross, and then
if you had no --
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Redirect.
MR. HOBBS: I mean redirect, and -- I'll learn these terms one day.
When we're through with that and you're through, then we will have a few
questions on rebuttal, directed(()) specifically to Dr. Harvey's report.
Do you want to take a break now so that we can organize ourselves? I
didn't think we would be at this point so soon.
MR. MARSHALL: That's fine.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)
MR. HOBBS: We have no further questions on redirect, and therefore
we are prepared to ask a few questions in rebuttal to Dr. Harvey's
report, inasmuch as this may be the last opportunity, convenient
opportunity that we have to take the testimony of Dr. Ray. I would like
to say that this will not be the full fledged rebuttal that we would
like the opportunity to do, but under the circumstances of the case, it
will just have to serve.
So unless something serious comes up later on, for example, during
Dr. Harvey's testimony, we have no present intention of recalling Dr.
Ray.
So with that explanation, I propose to ask a few questions on
rebuttal at this time.
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
91 TO 95
HOBBS, CHARLES A ; WILKINSON CRAGUN
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Dr. Ray, at pages 46 and 47 of your report you refer to an
allottee who was confused, and whose solution was to(()) sever the line
of communication with the BIA. Dr. Harvey states that the allottee was
speaking of severing her line of communication not with the BIA, but
with the Quinault Allottee Association. Would you comment on that,
please?
A. Yes, Mr. Hobbs. The quotation reads, as follows: "I do not
understand all this now," she wrote, referring to "timber monies," and
continued, "I get these letters all the time, but never receive
anything. Now I want my name taken off your mailing list. I hate
getting mail from things I do not understand."
To me the interpretation of those remarks is properly that she wants
nothing more to do with any of these matters, and in my opinion she
doesn't want to get mail from the BIA, or from the Allottees
Association, and with respect to the BIA the critical wording is "I get
these letters all the time but never receive anything."
Now, she wouldn't receive anything from the Allottees Association,
but she would, perhaps, hope to receive something from the BIA, and --
Q. By something or anything do you mean money?
A. I mean money. To me when she says, "never receive anything," she
means never receives any money, and the opinion that I have with respect
to this is that she wants to be out(()) of it entirely, and to be taken
off of the mailing list of the Allottees Association, and not to receive
any more communications from the Bureau that result in no money coming
in.
Q. Dr. Harvey says at page 13 in his report, which I don't think you
need to look at at this time, that most allottees are not Quinault
Indians and have never lived on the Quinault Reservation, so that many
of them have no emotional interest in retaining lands, whose only value
to them is monetary.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Hobbs, I'm sorry, but I cannot hear you.
MR. HOBBS: I'm sorry. I forgot all about you.
BY MR. HOBBS:
Q. Dr. Harvey says at page 13 that most allottees are not Quinault
Indians, have never lived on the Quinault Reservation, so that many have
no emotional interest in retaining land whose only value to them is
monetary gain. That was a repetition of my question. Would you comment
on that, Dr. Ray?
A. Yes. The allottees would have preferred to have retained the
lands which were -- those on which they were born, or which were the
aboriginal lands of their ancestors or their parents. They lost those
lands, and the only land base that they received in return was land on
the Quinault Reservation.(()) The Quinault Reservation, although not
their own lands, was nevertheless a part of their world, and it was the
only tie to the land that was retained by them, and a tie to the land
was so significant that there remained some emotional association with
it. I will say that I have had this expressed to me in almost precisely
those terms by Quinault allottees. Now, there is another consideration,
and that is that many allottees feel that if they have no land they have
automatically become white people, so to speak. Their ties with the
United States Government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs is broken,
and they have no more opening and no more connection, and the only one
remaining with the United States is the same as that of all of the white
people, and they do want to retain anything that gives them a feeling of
integrity, a feeling of Indianess, and this is one of the emotional ties
that they do have.
Q. I referred a moment ago to page 13 of Dr. Harvey's report. I
meant to say page 13 of the draft of his rebuttal report. I now refer
to page 25 of that same rebuttal report where Dr. Harvey states that
you, Dr. Ray, are apparently unaware of the existence of the Quinault
Newsletter, which the BIA puts out. Is this so, and was it so when you
wrote your report?
A. No, it was not so. I have been aware of it since its(())
inception.
Q. That is, you're aware of the newsletter because you have read
some copies of it?
A. I have seen copies from time to time. I have read a good many
copies of it.
Q. And was this so when you wrote your report?
A. That was so when I wrote my report.
MR. HOBBS: We have no further questions on rebuttal.
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71
; US COURT OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
761220 ; VOL 1
RAY, VERNE F
DEPOSITION
95 TO 96
MARSHALL, DAVID M ; US DEPT OF JUSTICE
BY MR. MARSHALL:
Q. Dr. Ray, you indicated in your testimony that at least one
Quinault allottee expressed to you an emotional interest in retaining
his land.
A. I'm sorry, Mr. Marshall, but I didn't hear you.
Q. That at least -- you indicated in your testimony that at least
one Quinault allottee indicated to you an emotional interest in
retaining his land.
A. No, I didn't. If I said that, that wasn't my intention. I said
I have talked to a number of allottees, or that's what I intend to say,
that I have heard this same expression of feeling with respect to the
holding of land from a number of allottees.
Q. Do you recall who they were?(())
A. Certainly Grandma Black, and certainly Horton Capoenman. It
would be hazardous to try to recall the other names.
Q. Now, there are -- I believe you also indicated that some
allottees were born on their allotments?
A. No. I didn't intend to. Allottees were born on aboriginal
lands, and they would have preferred to have allotments on their
aboriginal lands. I didn't intend to say that allottees were born on
their allotments.
Q. Well, are there any aboriginal allottees alive now?
A. There are original allottees alive, yes.
Q. And who were born on the reservation?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Now, in aboriginal times did the Quinault Indians own private
property?
A. No, not real property.
Q. Yes.
MR. MARSHALL: That concludes our recross.
MR. HOBBS: That concludes the examination and deposition of Dr. Ray.
Thank you very much, Dr. Ray.
THE WITNESS: You are very welcome.
(Whereupon, the proceedings in the above matter was adjourned at 3:35
p.m.)
HEL-003-0146-0244
HEL-003-0146-0244(())
HELEN MITCHELL VS US ; 772-71; 773-71 ; 774-71; 775-71 ; US COURT
OF CLAIMS SEATTLE, WA
DEPOSITION EXHIBIT
i TO 164
VR-1 ; PLAINTIFF
8
THE QUINAULT ALLOTTEES AND THE US GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT NOT PRESENT
RAY, VERNE F
760000
HEL-005-1423-1610
HEL-005-1423-1610